Allowed

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Potgunde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023APEAL/790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal against the refusal of regular bail. The High Court quashed the lower court's reliance on an irrelevant prior order and held that further custody was unnecessary, granting bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.15,000 with one surety and attending the police station once in a month for six months.

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Potgunde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

957 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.790 OF 2023

¶3

DNYANESHWAR LAXMAN POTGUNDE

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Nilkanth P. Bangar
APP for Respondent / State : Mrs. G.L. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed) : Mrs. Sayali Tekale –

¶7

Dadpe

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2023

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

.The appellant is aggrieved by the order of refusal of
regular bail in connection with Crime No. 158 of 2023 registered with
Nanded Rural Police Station, Dist. Nanded for the offences under
Sections 452, 504, 506 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section
3 (1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

¶11

2.The informant reported the incident occurred on
07.03.2023 at around 03:30 p.m. wherein it is alleged that the
present appellant along with co-accused came to her house and

¶12

1/4

¶13

threatened her to withdraw complaint lodged by her brother on
30.12.2022 against Gajanan and others. It is also alleged that the
appellant had been her home with dagger in his hand. The appellant
and co-accused threatened her and her family members and left the
house.

¶14

3.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the
application for bail by observing that there is order of this court
wherein liberty is granted to the appellant to apply for regular bail, if
the trial is not concluded within one year. By referring to the said
order it is submitted that the said order is passed in Crime No.
778/2022 registered with Nanded Rural Police Station and has
nothing to do with the present case. According to him, after filing of
the charge-sheet custody of the appellant for further period is not
required.

¶15

4.Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant

¶16

opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant
and contended that the appellant along with co-accused came to the
house of the informant with weapon and having regard to the serious

¶17

2/4

¶18

nature of offence, it is not fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. It
is further submitted that there are criminal antecedents against the
present appellant. They also expressed apprehension about
pressurizing to informant and the witnesses at the hands of the
appellant, if he is released on bail.

¶19

5.Perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in refusing application for bail indicates that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has misread the order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.06.2023 in different crime

¶20

and applied the same to the present case. Admittedly, charge-sheet
has been filed after completion of investigation. Having regard to the
nature of offence, further custody of the appellant is not necessary.
Insofar as the apprehension expressed by learned APP and learned
counsel for the informant about pressurizing to informant and
witnesses at the hands of the appellant is concerned, it will be taken
care by imposing appropriate condition on the appellant.

¶21

6.In view of above, the following order is passed.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶24

3/4

¶25

(ii)Appellant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like
amount.

¶26

(iii)Appellant is directed to attend the concerned police station
once in a month for a period of six months from today.

¶27

(iv)Bail before the Trial Court.

¶28

7.Fees of learned Counsel Mrs. Sayali Tekale - Dadpe, who
is appointed to represent cause of respondent No.2, is quantified at
Rs.6,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,
Aurangabad.

¶29

GGP

¶30

4/4

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Potgunde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Potgunde 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

Sudam Fakirrao Adhane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babulal S/O Devidas Rathod and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Another

Sariput Arjun Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikram Jalindar Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Juned Mansoor Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another