The High Court allowed the bail application of Santosh Dhawale tried as an accused in a criminal conspiracy involving armed assault and attempted murder, releasing him on a personal bond.
The applicant shall be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ with one or more sureties in the like sum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6 BA.1102.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1102 OF 2021
Santosh @ Michael Ramesh Dhawale
....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1792 OF 2021 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1102 OF 2021
Sandip Pandit Gaikwad ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
Mr. Monish Bhatia for the Applicant. Mr. Ateet Shirodkar for the Applicant/Intervener in IA/1792/2021. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent-State
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2021
P. C. :
R.V.Patil
1/5
6 BA.1102.2021.doc
attacked by two unknown persons with the iron rod and frearm, who fed the scene of ofence, the moment they saw the police van approached into the place of incident. The Complainant was admitted at Shraddha Hospital. Injury certifcate shows that he had sufered two gun injuries on the right leg; out of which one was exist gun short wound. The third injury was CLW on the right frontal parietal. Soon after the incident on 22nd October 2020, the subject crime came to be registered against two unknown persons. On 25th October 2020 supplementary statement of the Complainant was recorded in hospital, when he was conscious. Before I proceed to deal with the supplementary statement recorded three days after the incident, it may be stated that on the date of the incident and thereafter he was conscious throughout. Be that as it may on 25th October 2020, the Complainant disclosed that when he lodged the First Information Report, he could not narrate the correct facts may be for the reason, he was under tremendous pressure. Therefore, in the supplementary statement he disclosed that on 22nd October 2020 attack was mounted on him not with rod but by Koyata by three assailants and not two. For the frst time, after three days of the incident, he disclosed the name of the Applicant. Thereafter, second supplementary statement was recorded on 30th October, 2020. In this statement, he disclosed that one of the assailants was Hiten Thakur (Accused No. 1) an associates of the Applicant. Complainant’s this statement is descriptive. The Complainant would say, that in August 2020, he was doing gambling business and had permitted the Applicant to join the business in the same area. Later he prevented the Applicant to carry on gambling business at a particular place. Therefore, there was resent and bitterness between them. Thus alleged, the Applicant managed to attack
R.V.Patil
2/5
6 BA.1102.2021.doc
him with the help of his three associates / employees.
R.V.Patil
3/5
6 BA.1102.2021.doc
his supplementary statement recorded three days after the incident. There is no other material to connect the Applicant to the alleged conspiracy. In view of this fact, the continuation of custody of the Applicant is not essential. Even otherwise investigation and trial may not commence in the near future. Antecedents of the Applicant pointed out by the prosecution, relates to the ofences under the Gambling Act. In consideration of the facts stated above, in my view, the case is made out for granting bail to the Applicant. Thus the following order:
ORDER
R.V.Patil
4/5
6 BA.1102.2021.doc
[SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.]
R.V.Patil
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant is eligible for bail in a case involving attempts to murder and conspiracy under the Arms Act despite resistance to police.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Santosh @ Michael Ramesh Dhawale
The State of Maharashtra
Sandip Pandit Gaikwad
SANDEEP K. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
