Allowed

Raj Raghunath Vekhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Apr 2021ABA/91/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged assault with weapons under various IPC sections. The court noted a discrepancy between the FIR allegations of grievous injury and the medical certificates which showed only simple injuries, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the same amount upon arrest.

Raj Raghunath Vekhande Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 12-aba-91-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2021

¶5

Raj Raghunath Vekhande.... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vishal Patil for Applicant.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 09th APRIL, 2021

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶10

with C.R.No. I 130 of 2020 registered at Kinhavli Police Station,
Taluka Shahapur, Dist. Thane, under sections 326, 450, 324, 143,

¶11

147, 149, 188, 269, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short ‘IPC’).

¶12

2.Heard Shri. Vishal Patil, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

¶13

3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is
lodged by one Vishal Hajare. He has stated that, there was a

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Gokhale

¶16

 : 2 : 12-aba-91-21.odt

¶17

quarrel between his group and the applicant’s group in the month
of April, 2020. On 18/05/2020, at about 5:30p.m. when the
informant was returning home, the applicant saw him and abused
him. After some time, present applicant and about 30 others came
near him with sticks. The applicant was allegedly carrying an axe
and he started assaulting the informant. The applicant gave a blow
with axe on the informant. The informant put his left hand up to
save himself. Therefore, he suffered injury on his left wrist and left
leg. At that time his neighbours Ajit, Dnyaneshwar and his mother
came to save him. They were also assaulted. There are allegations
that the applicant gave a blow with axe on Dnyaneshwar’s head
causing injury. They damaged informant’s vehicle etc. His father
Anant was also assaulted by axe. Thereafter the accused went
away.

¶18

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
narration in the F.I.R. is highly exaggerated. Nobody had suffered
grievous injury, therefore, the applicant should be granted
anticipatory bail.

¶19

5.Learned APP relied on medical certificates. There are

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

 : 3 : 12-aba-91-21.odt

¶22

03 medical certificates produced before me. They are in respect of
Dnyaneshwar, Meerabai and Anant. Out of them, Meerabai and
Anant have not suffered any injury. Dnyaneshwar had suffered
three injuries; 1) simple injury on forehead of dimension 1cm x
1cm x 0.5cm. 2) abrasion on left arm and 3) swelling on right
hand. The police report shows that there was fracture of 2nd and 5th
metacarpal head will callus formation. Therefore, prosecution is
alleging that it could be offfence under section 326 of IPC.

¶23

6. Learned APP opposed this application.

¶24

7.I have considered these submissions. From the

¶25

narration in the F.I.R. it is the case of the informant that, all the 30
persons assaulted informant’s group with weapons like sticks and
axes. There are specific allegations that, his parents Meerabai and
Anant were also assaulted. However, injury certificates show that
they have not suffered any injury. There are allegations that the
applicant gave a blow of axe on Dnyaneshwar’s head. However, his
medical certificate shows that there was one simple injury of
dimension of 1cm x 1cm x 0.5cm on his forehead. Therefore, this
is also not in consonance with the allegations in the F.I.R. There

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

 : 4 : 12-aba-91-21.odt

¶28

are no allegations that the applicant had given any blow on the
right hand of Dnyaneshwar causing fracture. Apart from that,
there does not appear to be any serious injury caused to anybody.
The offence is quite old and it has taken place on 18/05/2020,
therefore, after so many days, in the background of injuries
referred to herein above, custodial interrogation of the applicant is
not necessary. He can be protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

¶29

8.Hence, the following order :

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 130 of 2020 registered at Kinhavli Police
Station, Taluka Shahapur, Dist. Thane, the
applicant is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

¶32

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶34

4 of 4

Raj Raghunath Vekhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Raghunath Vekhande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukaram Maruti Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Madhukar Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Ananta Mondala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parvati Ramdas Bhoir and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salman Idris Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devender Sukhpal Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra