Allowed

Sagar Vitthal Balate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Nov 2023ABA/3233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail in a violent dispute involving assault with weapons. The court noted a significant discrepancy in injuries sustained by the complainant versus the applicants and found custodial interrogation unnecessary due to time elapsed.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via PR bond of Rs. 30,000 each with one or two sureties; conditions to cooperate with investigation and appear in court.

Sagar Vitthal Balate and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:34931

¶2

914 aba 3233 of 2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3233 OF 2023

¶4

… Sagar Vitthal Balate and Anr. Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

… Respondent

¶6

Mr. Sachin M. Bhavar, for Applicant. Mr. S.H.Yadav, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 10 NOVEMBER 2023

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No. 394 of 2018 registered with Indapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

On 23 May 2018, an altercation allegedly ensued between the applicants and the first informant over drowning the electrical motor in the river. The applicant allegedly assaulted the first informant by means of an axe. Co-accused joined in the assault and the first informant was assaulted by means of iron rod and stick.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the instant FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the report lodged by the applicants leading to C .R.No.391 of 2018. In the said occurrence, the applicant No.1 had sustained four fractures. Attention was invited to the injury certificate of the applicant No.1.

¶13

SSP 1/3

¶14

914 aba 3233 of 2023.doc

¶15

I have perused the allegations in the FIR and the injury certificate of the Applicant No.1 as well as the first informant. It appears that the first informant had sustained one grievous injury on the left hand in the nature of fracture of metacarpal. In contrast, the injury certificate of the applicant No.1 indicates that he had sustained four grievous fractures in all four limbs.

¶16

Prima facie, it appears that in the course of the said occurrence, the applicant No.1 had sustained severe injuries. The accused party had lodged FIR first in point of time. It appears in respect of the very same occurrence, two versions have been reported. The question as to who was the aggressor and whether the injuries were caused in exercise of right of private defence, would arise for adjudication. As regards the applicant No.2, no specific role appears to have been attributed in the FIR. Since the incident is of 2018, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not seem to be warranted to facilitate further investigation. I am, therefore, impelled to allow the application.

¶17

Hence, the following order :

¶18

(i) In the event of the arrest of the Applicants – Sagar Vitthal Balate

¶19

and Vitthal Manohar Balate in connection with C.R.No.394 of 2018 registered with Indapur Police Station, they be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶20

SSP 2/3

¶21

914 aba 3233 of 2023.doc

¶22

(ii) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and report

¶23

to Indapur Police Station on 22^nd , 23^rd and 24^th November 2023 in between 10.00 a.m.

¶24

to 1.00 p.m., and, thereafter, as and when directed.

¶25

(iii) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses and the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶26

(iv) The Applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the

¶27

jurisdictional Court.

¶28

(v) The Application stands disposed.

¶29

(vi) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to

¶30

determine the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶31

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶32

SSP 3/3

Sagar Vitthal Balate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Vitthal Balate 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

Avinash Hindurao Olekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Sitaram Moghe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahendra Shivaji Gunjal Vs State of Maharashtra

Kamilhusain Musaddik Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Uday Jagannath Ghodke Vs State of Maharashtra

Jayashree Vijaykumar Joglekar Vs Chandrashekhar Sitaram Joglekar and Another