Allowed

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Feb 2021BA/349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving alleged attempted murder and assault with a sword. The court noted minor injuries and lack of necessity for continued custody during trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant directed to be released on bail by furnishing a police bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 : 1 : 35.BA-349-21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2021

¶4

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate i/b. Rushikesh Kale, Jay Patil, for
the Applicant.

¶6

Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶8

DATE:18th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶11

connection with C.R.No.709/2020 registered at Jodbhavi

¶12

police station, Solapur under Sections 307, 506(2) read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 & 25 of the
Indian Arms Act.

¶13

2.The Applicant is arrested on 13.7.2020 and since
then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-
sheet is already filed.

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Deshmane(PS)

¶16

 : 2 : 35.BA-349-21.odt

¶17

3.Heard Shri V.V. Purwant, learned Counsel for the
Applicant and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

¶18

4.The FIR is lodged by one Yuvraj Yalshetty. He has
stated that the Applicant was his neighbour. He has his cattle
shed near his house. There are at least 20-22 animals in the
cattle shed. They were causing nuisance to the residents. The
local residents had requested the Applicant to remove that
cattle shed on many occasions, but, he was refusing to do so.
On 12.7.2020, the informant had again told him to remove his
cattle shed. But because of that, the Applicant had got angry.
On the next day i.e. on 13.7.2020, at about 9:30 p.m., the
Applicant approached the informant on a motorcycle. He was
carrying a sword and he tried to give a blow on the informant.
The informant avoided that blow, but, it landed on his left
arm. The informant then held his sword because of which he
suffered injuries. Because of this a mob gathered there and
he left the place. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶19

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the incident is minor and the informant has suffered

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

 : 3 : 35.BA-349-21.odt

¶22

absolutely minor injuries. Section 307 of IPC is not attracted
in this case. He submitted that the statement of one Akshay
Korade shows that the informant himself had threatened the
present Applicant on the earlier day.

¶23

6.Learned A.P.P. opposed this application on the

¶24

ground that the Applicant had tried to give blow on the
informant. That shows his intention and is a clear case of
attempt to commit murder.

¶25

7.I have considered all these submissions and with

¶26

the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, I have
perused the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shows that there
is a medical certificate. The injured first informant had
suffered two injuries. The first one was on the right palm
having dimension 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm and other was on the
left arm having dimension 4 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm. Both the
injuries were described as simple injuries. There does not
appear to be any serious injury.

¶27

8.The statements of other eye witnesses, namely
Siddharam Yelshetty, Shivaji Rathod and Balaji Jaji have

¶28

3 of 4

¶29

 : 4 : 35.BA-349-21.odt

¶30

sufficiently corroborated the first informant’s case. Thus, at
this stage, the occurrence of the incident cannot be doubted.
The Applicant has assaulted the first informant. But looking
at the nature of injuries it is doubtful as to whether Section
307 of IPC is made out in this particular case. The applicant
was carrying a sword and he could have inflicted more
injuries on the vital parts of the informant. The Applicant is in
custody since 13.7.2020. His further custody during entire
period of trial is not necessary. He deserves to be released on
bail. Hence, the following order :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) In connection with C.R.No.709/2020 registered with Jodbhavi police station, Solapur, 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.

¶33

(ii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Digitally signed by PradeepkumarP. Deshmane PradeepkumarP. DeshmaneDate: 2021.02.23 12:39:59 +0530

¶35

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶36

Deshmane (PS)

¶37

4 of 4

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande 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

Rajendra Vasant Dhaigude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salimunisa Asif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Krushnappa Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Gyanba Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Sunil Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra