Allowed

Sachin Sitaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2023ABA/50/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed two anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 CrPC for offences under the IPC. The court cited a pending civil dispute, a cross FIR, and the applicants' service jobs as factors supporting relief, imposing specific conditions on investigation cooperation and movement.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants to be released on bail on executing bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties; conditions on police attendance and restricted movement imposed.

Sachin Sitaram Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2023.01.29 13:40:57 +0500

¶2

36-aba-50-5123.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2023 (Sr.No.36)

¶4

Sachin S. Pawar …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2023 (Sr.No.37) Ramesh P. Pawar …Applicant V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NOS. 186 AND 187 AND OF 2023

¶8

Ms Neha R. Kokare for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Ms Neeta Singh for the Intervener.

¶9

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 17.01.2023.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Both these applications are fled under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail. The Interim Application Nos.186 and 187 of 2023 for intervention are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.

¶12

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in C.R. No. 439 of 2022 registered at Walchand Nagar police station, Pune Rural for the ofences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147,148,149,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

1/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

36-aba-50-5123.doc

According to the prosecution, on 7 October 2022 at about 7:45 p.m., the present applicants and other co-accused assaulted the complainant Sanjay Kale by sword, iron rod etc. and attempted to kill him on account of previous dispute.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant in ABA No. 50 of 2023 is working as Gram Sevak and the applicant in ABA No.51 of 2023 is working as Talathi. It is submitted that there is dispute between the parties in relation to immovable properties and the said dispute is pending in the Court. It is submitted that there is a cross FIR as the family members of the applicants were assaulted in the alleged incident. It is submitted that if the applicants are arrested, then it would adversely afect their service career.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the intervenor submit that the applicants and other co-accused had assaulted the complainant by sword, iron rod etc. It is submitted that considering the nature of ofence, the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶20

Admittedly, there is a dispute between the parties in relation to the immovable properties and the same is pending the Court.

2/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

36-aba-50-5123.doc

According to the applicants, they were not present at the time of alleged incident. Though, I am not inclined to deal with the said plea at the stage of bail, however, in view of the dispute between the parties in relation to immovable properties the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. There is a cross FIR. The applicants are in service. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the result the following order is passed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

A) Both Anticipatory Bail Application are allowed.

¶27

B) In the event of arrest of the applicants viz. Sachin Pawar and Ramesh Pawar in C.R. No. 439 of 2022 registered at Walchand Nagar police station, Pune Rural for the ofences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147,148,149,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, they be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

C) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station from 30 January 2023 to 1 February 2023 between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶29

D) The applicants shall not enter into the limits of Village Nirgude without permission of the trial Court till conclusion of trial.

3/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

36-aba-50-5123.doc

In view of disposal of anticipatory bail applications, the Interim Applications do not survive and the same are disposed of.

¶34

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶35

4/4

¶36

Dinesh S. Sherla

Sachin Sitaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sitaram Pawar 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

Vinod Vilas Shigvan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Laxman Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Hakim Abdul Aziz Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Eknath Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Pandharinath Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Sachin Appa Ithape Vs the State of Maharashtra