Allowed

Raju Devendra Upadhayay v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Mar 2021BA/371/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the bail application of Raju Devendra Upadhayay arrested in connection with a criminal case involving sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Arms Act. The court directed release on bail with a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via bond and sureties of Rs. 25,000; prohibited from tampering with evidence; reported to police monthly; provisional cash bail of Rs. 25,000 for four weeks allowed.

Raju Devendra Upadhayay Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

rpa 1 / 4 33 ba 371 2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2021

¶4

Raju Devendra Upadhayay .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Prashant Gurav, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

PSI Dilip Rane, Aarey Police Station, Mumbai, present.

¶8

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶9

DATED : MARCH 17, 2021.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The applicant is arrested on 13^th June, 2020, in connection with C.R. No.105 of 2020, registered with Aarey Police Station, Mumbai, for the ofences punishable under Section 307, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) read with Sections 4 and 25 of Arms Act and Section 135 of The Maharashtra Police Act. First Information Report was lodged on 10^th June, 2020.

¶12

Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. AherDate: Aher 2021.03.20 15:14:24 +0530

¶13

2 The case of the prosecution is that on 8^th June, 2020, the complainant Sumit Nayar had quarrel with Pravin. He was threatened on 10^th June, 2020. Pravin, Rajan and their two

¶14

rpa 2 / 4 33 ba 371 2021.doc

¶15

associates obstructed him. He was abused and assaulted with fst blows. He informed the incident to his family members. Thereafter, all of them approached accused. Raju Upadhyay, Rajan Upadhyay and Pravin were present. On being confronted by the parents of the complainant, Pravin and Rajan went inside the house of Pravin and brought sword and sickle. Raju Upadhyay tried to give blow on head of complainant, but, the sickle turned which resulted in blow on right shoulder of complainant. Rajan assaulted Subhash Kumar by sword on head. To save himself Subhash tried to defend resulting in injury to his hand. Raju assaulted by sickle to Babu Habale on his neck. He tried to save by putting his hands forward, which resulted in injury to hands. They threatened people who tried to save injured and created terror.

¶16

3 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Pravin and Rajan Upadhyay has been granted bail.

¶17

4 Learned APP submitted that the applicant was instrumental in assaulting by weapons. On perusal of injury certifcate of Balu Habale to whom the applicant has assaulted it can be seen that there is injury on the left hand by way of deep cut.

¶18

rpa 3 / 4 33 ba 371 2021.doc

¶19

5 Learned APP submitted that there are two more cases registered against the applicant. However, considering the factual matrix of the case, applicant need not be detained in custody. The co-accused are granted bail.

¶20

6 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶21

:: O R D E R ::

¶22

(i) Bail Application No.371 of 2021, is allowed;

¶23

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.105 of 2020, registered with Aarey Police Station, Mumbai, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶24

(iii) Applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence;

¶25

(iv) Applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month for a period of six months, and, thereafter once in three months on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.;

¶26

rpa 4 / 4 33 ba 371 2021.doc

¶27

(vi) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, in lieu of surety, for a period of four weeks;

¶28

(vii) Bail Application No.371 of 2021, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Raju Devendra Upadhayay v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Devendra Upadhayay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Dilip Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sumit Suresh Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Salim Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Ramesh Zende Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash @ Sanny Haribhau Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.