Partly allowed

Ganesh Lahu Thorat and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Dec 2022ABA/3529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding a dispute leading to alleged assault and grievous injury. The court declined bail for the first applicant due to the nature of the injury but granted it to the second applicant who had no specific allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Applicant No. 2 on deposit of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and attendance at police station on specified dates; application for Applicant No. 1 dismissed.

Ganesh Lahu Thorat and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

904-ABA-3529-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3529 OF 2022

¶4

1. Ganesh Lahu Thorat

¶5

2. Pappu Balu Rakhpasare…Applicants
 V/s.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Sushil D. Shinde, for the Applicant.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the State.
Ms. Rekha Musale, for original complainant.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2022.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail.

¶10

2.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.
521 of 2022 registered at Baramati City Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 326, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3.According to the prosecution, on 01/11/2022 at about 1.30
p.m. the present applicants on account of some financial dispute,
assaulted the complainant by iron rod. It is alleged that the

¶12

1/3

¶13

A. J. Vallakati

¶14

904-ABA-3529-22.doc

¶15

complainant sustained grievous injury.

¶16

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the
learned APP for the respondent/State.

¶17

5.The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is
a delay of three days in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that
complainant had borrowed money from the applicants and as they
were asking him to return their money, the complainant had lodged the
false complaint. It is submitted that there are no other criminal
antecedents. It is therefore submitted that the applicants may be
released on anticipatory bail.

¶18

6.On the other hand the learned APP for the
respondent/State submits that the present applicants assaulted the
complainant by iron rod. It is submitted that considering the nature of
offence, the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

7.I have perused the FIR. According to the complainant, the
applicant No.1- Ganesh Thorat assaulted him by iron rod. It appears
that applicant No. 1 at the time of alleged incident was carrying koyata
also. The nature of injury sustained by the complainant appears to be
grievous. Considering these facts, I am not inclined to release
applicant No. 1 on anticipatory bail.

¶20

2/3

¶21

A. J. Vallakati

¶22

904-ABA-3529-22.doc

¶23

8.As regards, applicant No. 2, there are no allegations of
assault by him. Nothing is to be recovered at his instance, and
therefore, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Considering
these facts, I am inclined to release the applicant No. 2 on anticipatory
bail. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

A] The Application is partly allowed.

¶26

B] In the event of arrest of applicant No. 2- Pappu Balu Rakhpasare in C.R. No. 521 of 2022 registered at Baramati City Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 326, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) withone or two sureties in the like amount.

¶27

C] The applicant No. 2 shall attend the concerned Police Station on 27/12/2022 and 29/12/2022 and shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶28

[ N.R.BORKAR, J. ]

¶29

3/3

¶30

A. J. Vallakati

Ganesh Lahu Thorat and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Lahu Thorat and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish S/O Budharam Vs State of Maharashtra

Gorakh Namdeo Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul @ Aba Pandurang Sarode Vs State of Maharashtra

Dheeraj Chandrakant Shitole Vs State of Maharashtra

Gauri Rajendra Mhaske Vs State of Maharashtra

Rahul Sanjay Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra