Allowed

Amol Ganeshrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC7 Jul 2023ABA/301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused facing offences under Sections 354, 354D, 294, 341, 504 and 507 IPC. The court emphasized the applicant's cooperation in investigation and accepted an undertaking to refrain from contacting the informant.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of interim relief dated 03.03.2023; applicant granted freedom from arrest upon undertaking.

Amol Ganeshrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

929 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.301 OF 2023

¶3

AMOL GANESHRAO DESHMUKH
VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶5

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vishant Prabhakarrao Kadam
APP for Respondent – State : Mr. V.S. Badakh

¶6

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 7th JULY, 2023

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

.Applicant is an advocate and facing apprehension of

¶9

arrest in connection with Crime No.43 of 2023 registered with
New Mondha Police Station, Tal. & Dist. Parbhani for the offence
punishable under Section 354, 354D, 294, 341, 504 and 507 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶10

2. First Information Report indicates that applicant and informant are acquaintance of each other. It is alleged that since last

¶11

8 to 10 months applicant used to stop her. He also used to send
obscene messages to her. In this regard he was advised time and

¶12

again by informant and her husband, however applicant did not

¶13

1/3

¶14

refrain from indulging in such activities. Lastly the incident occurred
on 18.02.2023 on the basis of which report came to be lodged.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for applicant states that from the report
of the Investigating Officer filed before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, it is clear that applicant pursuant to the protection granted
by this Court has cooperated with the investigation and motorcycle as
well as mobile phone which were required for the effective
investigation have already been seized from him. Learned counsel
further submits that custodial interrogation of applicant is not
necessary.

¶16

4.Learned APP and learned counsel for informant submit

¶17

that applicant being advocate is not expected indulging in such
activities and not to harass informant and cause trouble in her
matrimonial life.

¶18

5.On these submissions, learned counsel for applicant, on
instructions, gives undertaking to the Court that applicant will not
contact informant in any manner whatsoever including personal or

¶19

2/3

¶20

online, mobile contact etc.

¶21

6.There is no doubt it is not expected of anyone to keep
indulging in such activities, much less advocate who is professing a
noble profession. However, the Court needs to see as to whether the
custodial interrogation of applicant would be necessary at this stage.

¶22

Report of the Investigating Officer abundantly makes it clear that
applicant has cooperated in the investigation and all relevant
evidence has been collected. Applicant cannot be sent behind the
bars by way of pretrial sentence. The undertaking given by applicant
through his learned advocate, which is accepted, will take care of the
apprehensions of informant. Hence, following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Application is allowed in terms of interim relief dated

¶25

03.03.2023.

¶26

[ R. M. JOSHI ] JUDGE

¶27

GGP

¶28

3/3

Amol Ganeshrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Ganeshrao Deshmukh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaykumar Prakash Ransing and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prabhavati W/O. Balasaheb Lohar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anuradha W/O. Prakash Ransing Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pooja W/O. Gajanan Jogdand Vs Amol Ganeshrao Deshmukh and Another

Shri Venkatesh Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Ahmednagar, through Amol a. Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajendra Dwarkadas Agrawal Vs M/S. Agrawal Mobile Gallery through Its Proprietor Dashrath Agrawal