Allowed

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jul 2022ABA/1784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed an anticipatory bail application. Relying on facts from a connected bail application where the court found no prima facie case warranting custodial interrogation, the bench held that the same reasons apply. The applicants were granted bail subject to a surety bond and an order reporting to the police.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicants released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 20,000 each and sureties, subject to reporting to police and not tampering with evidence.

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

16-aba-1784-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1784 OF 2022

¶4

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Others ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.07.08 11:10:05 +0530

¶7

Mr. Priyal Sarda, for the Applicants Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP, for the State.

¶8

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JULY 05, 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.48 of 2021 registered with Warje Malwadi police station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 353, 188, 268, 269, 143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; section 37(1)(3) read with 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951; section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952.

¶12

The applicant is arraigned along with the co-accused for the offences for having taken out procession on account of release of coaccused Gajanan Marne on 15^th February, 2021, in breach of the prohibitory order and the directions issued in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic and in the process committed the offence of rioting and

Vishal Parekar

...1

16-aba-1784-2022.doc

use of criminal force to the public servant in discharge of official duties.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicants invited attention of the Court to an order passed by this Court on 12^th August, 2021 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1315 of 2021 along with connected applications. By the said order this Court was persuaded to allow the applications for pre-arrest bail.

¶18

The observations of the Court to paragraph Nos. 5 to 7 are material and hence extracted below:-

¶19

5] Perusal of the allegations levelled against the Applicant would reveal that his supporters have picked up the food articles from the stalls without making payment, but it prima facie, would not fall within the purview of dacoity since it does not satisfy the ingredients of robbery, which requires extortion by putting the person in fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. Section 268 of the IPC, which has been invoked along with Sections 279, 241, 504, 506, 283, 143 are bailable offences.

¶20

6] C.R. No.I-48 of 2021 invokes Sections 353, 188, 268, 269, 143, 149 of the IPC and the allegation is

Vishal Parekar

...2

16-aba-1784-2022.doc

that the police constable, who was implementing the order imposed during the Covid pandemic was restrained from discharging his public duty. The Complainant in the said C.R. alleges that he was pushed by hand, by the participants in the procession and without adhearing to the orders imposed for restricting the spread of Covid-19, the mob moved ahead. The only section invoked, which is nonbailable is Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, which punishes an act of molesting a person to the prejudice of his employment or business and the said section imposes punishment for an act of a person committed with an intention to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which a person has right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructing or use of violence or intimidating any person or loitering at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides, so as to deprive him or hinder him in the use thereof. The offence is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine. The said offence is non-bailable. The intention which is a necessary ingredient of Section 7 does not prima facie surface from the allegations levelled.

Vishal Parekar

...3

16-aba-1784-2022.doc

7] In any case, in the wake of all the accusations

¶29

being summed up together against the present Applicant, it does not warrant the custodial interrogation and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in all the aforesaid four C.Rs. However, this is subject to the stipulation that the Applicant shall report to the respective police stations as and when called for and render all his co-operation in investigation.

¶30

The aforesaid reasons apply with equal force to the applicants in the case at hand. Hence, the following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1] The application stands allowed.

¶33

2] In the event of arrest, in C.R. No.48 of 2021 registered with Warje Malwadi police station, Pune the applicants Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare, Bapu Shreemant Bagal, Ananta Dnyanoba Kadam, Sachin Appa Takawale and Shrikant Sambhaji Pawar be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/each and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

3] The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any

Vishal Parekar

...4

16-aba-1784-2022.doc

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶39

4] The applicants shall report to Investigating Officer, Warje Malwadi police station, Pune as and when directed.

¶40

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶41

Vishal Parekar

¶42

...5

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Ors. v. 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

Vrushali Sham Kame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Navnath Ramchandra Bhosale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Suresh Hukmat Rai Jadhwani Vs Union of Inda through Directorate General of GST Intelligenceand Anr.

Dilip Shankar Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Pappu Alias Mohammad Kutub Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra

Shambhaji Pandurang Khot and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra