The High Court granted bail to an applicant charged with assault and breach of arms act conditions after the investigation concluded, noting injuries were largely simple and not life-threatening.
Released on furnish of Rs. 30,000 bond with one or two sureties, and required to attend police station fortnightly for one year.
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.
20-ba-672-21.odt
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2021
Tushar @ Ranjeet Sanjay Gaikwad
.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Mr. Rupesh A. Zade for Applicant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State/Respondent.
CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:12th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No. 446 of 2020 registered at Walchand
Nagar police station, on 30/09/2020, under sections 326, 323, 504
and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and
under section 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Subsequently,
section 307 of IPC was added.
2.Heard Shri. Rupesh Zade, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri. Dedhia, learned APP for the State.
1 of 5
Gokhale
: 2 : 20-ba-672-21.odt
3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is
lodged by one Prashant Budhavale on 30/09/2020. He has stated
that, four months prior to lodging of F.I.R. there was some quarrel
between the applicant and himself on the ground that the
applicant had driven his motorcycle dangerously.
4.Two months prior to lodging of F.I.R. again applicant
had abused the informant. At that time, though the informant was
not knowing the applicant, he made inquiries and he came to
know about the name of the applicant. On 30/09/2020, at about
3:45p.m. the informant had reached PDCC bank at Kalamb. There
again the applicant abused him and threatened him. At about
4:00p.m. the informant went to a petrol pump at Kalamb for
buying petrol. When he was coming out of the petrol pump area,
the applicant came there on motorcycle. It is mentioned in the
F.I.R. that there was a tempo near him. The applicant removed a
sword from that tempo and started assaulting the informant. The
informant suffered injuries on his legs, cheek, chest and right
index finger. At that time, the others who were present at the
petrol pump, came to his rescue. The applicant went away.
2 of 5
: 3 : 20-ba-672-21.odt
Thereafter this F.I.R. was lodged.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
informant has improved his story in his supplementary statement.
He had stated in his F.I.R. that the applicant had taken out a sword
from the tempo, but in his supplementary statement he has stated
that it was taken out from the motorcycle itself. The sword was
concealed below the seat. He submitted that, thus, the informant is
not telling the true story. He further submitted that, in any case the
offence is much lesser. It cannot be the offence under section 307
of IPC as the applicant had ample opportunity to commit
informant’s murder, if he wanted to do so. He submitted that,
except one fracture, other injuries are simple. The applicant is in
custody since 06/10/2020. The investigation is over and his
custody for further investigation is not necessary.
6.Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted
that the manner in which assault was mounted with sword on the
informant shows inclination and tendency of the present applicant.
Therefore, bail should not be granted to him.
7.I have considered these submissions and with the
3 of 5
: 4 : 20-ba-672-21.odt
assistance of both learned counsel I have perused the charge-sheet.
Besides the victim, there are statements of eye witnesses namely
Sambhaji Ghodke, Bapu Chavan, Tukaram Bodare, Mangesh
Ghodke, Aryan Gaikwad and Ramesh Khomne. All of them have
consistently stated about the incident and about the assault
mounted by the present applicant on the victim. Besides this direct
evidence, there is recovery of sword from the possession of
applicant’s father. Thus, there is sufficient material to show
complicity of the present applicant in the present offence.
However, looking at the nature of injuries, it can be seen that the
victim had suffered six injuries as follows:
i) Stab injury on left side of chest which is described as
superficial injury and categorized as simple injury.
ii) There are four abrasions over maxilla, nose-tip,
right forearm and middle region. These are also described as
simple injuries and they were superficial injuries.
iii) Last injury was compound fracture of the right
index finger. That was a grievous injury.
But the grievous injury was caused to non vital part of
4 of 5
: 5 : 20-ba-672-21.odt
the body and it was not endangering informant’s life. Thus, it is
doubtful whether section 307 of IPC is applicable in this case. This
will have to be decided during trial. However, the applicant is in
custody since 06/10/2020. The investigation is over. His further
custody for investigation purpose is not necessary. The trial is not
likely to commence in near future. Therefore, the applicant can be
released on bail with some conditions.
8.Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i)In connection with C.R.No. 446 of 2020
registered at Walchand Nagar police station, 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.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight for a period of one year from today.(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail given the nature of injuries and completion of investigation.
Whether the applicability of Section 307 IPC regarding the injury to a non-vital part endangers life.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tushar @ Ranjeet Sanjay Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court