Allowed

Devesh Datta Pathrikar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC29 Nov 2023ABA/1210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under IPC Sections 307, 143, 147, and 149. The court allowed the applications, releasing the accused on bail of Rs. 15,000 and imposing conditions regarding conduct and investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 each with one surety, subject to standard conditions.

Devesh Datta Pathrikar and Another Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AUG:25098

¶2

908-ABA-1209-2023+.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1209 OF 2023

¶5

Meher W/o Datta Pathrikar And Another...Applicants

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1210 OF 2023

¶10

Devesh Datta Pathrikar And Another...Applicants

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State Of Maharashtra And Another...Respondents

¶13

...

¶14

Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, Addl. PP, for the Respondent –
State.

¶15

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the informant to assist
APP.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:NOVEMBER 29, 2023

¶18

COMMON ORDER :

¶19

1.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with

¶20

with C.R. No. 239 of 2023 registered with Badnapur
Police Station, Dist. Jalna for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal
Code.

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

908-ABA-1209-2023+.odt

¶23

2.Pandurang Mandgikar, Administrative Officer,
Nirmal Krida and Samaj Prabodhan Trust reported to the
police on 17.06.2023 about the incident occurred on
15.06.2023. It is alleged in the FIR that on 15.06.2023
at about 11.00 am while he was working in the chamber
of the Chairman of the trust, present Applicants and
the co-accused came there. It is alleged that apart
from issuing threats to the informant, accused persons
assaulted him with fist and kick blows. There is also
allegation that he was tried to be strangulated by two
accused with handkerchief. It is alleged against
Applicant – Meher that she instigated the co-accused to
strangulate him.

¶24

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits

¶25

that there are disputes between the parties which are
apparent from the FIR itself. It is submitted that CCTV
footage of the incident has been provided to the
investigating agency and the same indicates that no
such incident as alleged in the FIR has ever occurred
to attract offence under Section 307 of IPC. According
to him, owing to the previous disputes, possibility of
false implication is not ruled out.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

908-ABA-1209-2023+.odt

¶28

4.Learned APP and learned Counsel for informant
have opposed the application essentially on the ground
that injury certificate indicates causing of blunt
trauma to the informant. Learned Counsel for informant
has apprehended the intervention at the hands of
Applicants in the evidence of prosecution.

¶29

5.First informant report itself is sufficient to
demonstrate that there are dispute between the parties
over the appointment and removal of the persons from
the trust. Though it is alleged in the report that
there is an attempt of strangulating the informant,
however, no such incident seems to have occurred as it
appears from the transcript of CCTV footage of the
incident. There is nothing to indicate that any such
strangulation was attempted on informant. Apart from
this, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for
the Applicants that there is delay of two days in
lodging of the report and having regard to the facts of
case and nature of alleged injuries caused to the
informant such delay is not justified. Lodging of
report belatedly creates serious doubt about the
genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. Apart

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

908-ABA-1209-2023+.odt

¶32

from this, injury certificate issued by the Rural
Hospital does not show that any history of attempted
strangulation was given by the informant. This Court,
therefore, agrees with the contention of learned
Counsel for the Applicants that this could be a case of
false implication. There are no criminal antecedents
against Applicants in ABA/1209/2023. Though Applicant
No. 1 in ABA/1210/2023 has discredit of one conviction
against him but having regard to the facts of the case
and strong possibility of exaggeration/over
implication, it is a fit case to protect his liberty
too.

¶33

6.In view of above, applications are allowed.
Hence, the order:

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

(i) Applications are allowed.

¶36

(ii) In the event of arrest the Applicants in both Applications in connection with C.R. No. 239 of 2023 registered with Badnapur Police Station, Dist. Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount.

¶37

(iii)They shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

908-ABA-1209-2023+.odt

¶40

(iv) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶41

(v) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶42

(vi) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation.

¶43

 (R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶44

Malani

¶45

Page 5 of 5

Devesh Datta Pathrikar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devesh Datta Pathrikar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., through Authorized Officer Durgesh Amardeep Nirwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Bhausaheb Kanade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jitendra Diwakar Ogale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Rajendra More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Meher W/O Datta Pathrikar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mosin Mumtaz Pathan Vs the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad