Allowed

Amol Subhash Ghorpade v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC21 Oct 2024ABA/1407/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a murder FIR where they were unnamed as assailants. Finding no prima facie material connecting them to the crime, despite its seriousness, the Court granted anticipatory bail on PR bonds with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail on PR bond of Rs.15,000 each with one surety, subject to attending police station when required and not contacting witnesses or interfering with evidence.

Amol Subhash Ghorpade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:25826

¶2

37-ABA-1407-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1407 OF 2024

¶5

Amol Subhash Ghorpade

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶8

WITH

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1408 OF 2024

¶10

1. Rohan Sachin Jagtap

¶11

2. Prasad Dilip Tribhuvan
VERSUS

¶12

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶13

¶14

• Mr. A. N. Barhate Patil, Advocate for the Applicants • Ms. M. L. Sangit, APP for the Respondent/State *******

¶15

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 21, 2024

¶16

COMMON ORDER :

¶17

1.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with

¶18

with C.R. No. 309/2024 registered with Rahata Police
Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

2.FIR is lodged on 04.07.2024 wherein the

¶20

Informant Ganpat reported to the police on 12.02.2024

¶21

accused Prakash came to his house in his innova

¶22

Umesh PAGE 1 OF 5

¶23

37-ABA-1407-2024.odt

¶24

vehicle. Along with him he went to the spot. At the
said place he found his father being tied. He claims
that his father told him that accused Prakash and other
three persons would kill him. He further states that
his father further informed him Prakash on the ground
of payment of money abused him and brought him to the
said place in his vehicle. He also claims that he was
abused as well as assaulted. Allegation against Praksh
is that he used stick to assault him. He thereafter
took his father to the house. At that time, the owner
of the said place Bhaskar and Walid Pathan were
present. The accused threatened them not to report the
incident to the police and told him informed to the
police if asked his father has sustained injuries in

¶25

the accident. On 13.02.2024 at about 03.30 am his
father was declared dead.

¶26

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits

¶27

that there is delay of about 5 months in lodging of the
report. It is his contention that initially accidental

¶28

death report was submitted to the police by informant himself. It is his submission that investigation into the crime is over and charge-sheet is filed. According Umesh PAGE 2 OF 5

¶29

37-ABA-1407-2024.odt

¶30

to him, there is absolutely no evidence on record to
connect present Applicants with the crime in question.
He, therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶31

4.Learned APP opposed the applications by

¶32

relying upon the evidence collected during the
investigation. She refers to the FIR and to the
statements of Bhaskar and Walid in order to contend
that the said incident did occurred. As far as present
Applicants is concerned, it is sought to be argued that
on the basis of CDR it can be seen that the Applicants
were in contact with the co-accused before as well as
after occurrence of the incident. She also claims that
their presence at the spot can be seen from the said
report. Citing seriousness of the crime, application is
opposed.

¶33

5. Admittedly, FIR or in statement of any of the witnesses present Applicants are not named as assailants. Though it is sought to be contended by the Informant while registering FIR he was threatened by the accused persons, he reported under pressure to the medical officer about his father sustaining injuries Umesh PAGE 3 OF 5

¶34

37-ABA-1407-2024.odt

¶35

due to the accident. Even if it is so, the statements
recorded of Prakash Pund shows that this is the witness

¶36

who along with Informant went to the spot. In his
statement nothing came on record to indicate that his
father has disclosed anything to the informant with
regard to the assault. On the contrary, he states that
he received a phone call from the Informant about his
father sustaining injuries in an accident. This Court
thus finds substance in the contention of the learned
Counsel for the Applicants that presence of the
Applicants in village cannot be considered as
incriminating circumstance so also the phone calls
between them and co-accused. Prima facie since there is
no material on record to connect the Applicants with

¶37

this crime and in spite of fact that offence is under
Section 302 IPC, Applicants liberty deserves to be
protected. Statement is made that Applicants have no
criminal history behind them.

¶38

6.In view of above, applications are allowed.

¶39

Hence, the order:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i)In the event of arrest of the Applicants in
connection with C.R. No. 309/2024 registered

¶42

PAGE 4 OF 5

¶43

Umesh

¶44

37-ABA-1407-2024.odt

¶45

with Rahata Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar
for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 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.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

 (R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶50

PAGE 5 OF 5

¶51

Umesh

Amol Subhash Ghorpade v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Subhash Ghorpade 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

Ajay Kantilal Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aseem Kamal Teli and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Rohidas Telange and Others vs the Sub Divisional Officer and Others

Pritam Vinayak Patil and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunita W/O Ulferao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopal Babruwan Lokhande and Antoher Vs the State of Maharashtra