Allowed

Baban Kanha Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jan 2024ABA/6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant charged with grievous hurt and related offences. The court held that despite a fracture, the applicant likely lacked the specific intention to cause grievous hurt, rendering a custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of like amount upon arrest.

Baban Kanha Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

05-ABA-6-24.odt

¶2

1 / 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2024

¶5

Baban Kanha Jadhav.... Applicant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
…....

¶6

Mr. Aashish Satpute, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

• Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 05th JANUARY, 2024

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶11

with C.R.No.1028/2023 dated 19/10/2023, registered with
Shikrapur Police Station, Pune City, under sections 324, 504,
506 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code was applied.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. Aashish Satpute, learned counsel for the

¶13

Applicant and Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

¶14

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2024.01.1015:20:48 Nesarikar +0530

¶15

2 / 5 05-ABA-6-24.odt

¶16

3. The FIR is lodged by the injured Shivaji Bhaurao

¶17

Kamble. He has stated that on 15/10/2023 at about 04.00 p.m.
when he was sitting outside his house, the Applicant’s goats
started eating vegetables and bushes in front of his house. The
informant told the Applicant to take care of his goats. There was
a quarrel. The Applicant brought an axe and gave blows of axe
on the informant’s left palm and cheek. The informant went to
Shikrapur police station. He was given memo for medical
examination. He was told that there was fracture to his hand
and therefore he was sent to Sassoon hospital, Pune. After
taking treatment, the informant came back and lodged the FIR
on 19/10/2023.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the

¶19

FIR was lodged after a delay of 4 days. It shows that the
Applicant was implicated as an afterthought. Initially the FIR
was lodged mainly u/s 324 of the IPC. He submitted that the
fracture was very minor and the Applicant never intended to
cause any grievous injury.

¶20

3 / 5 05-ABA-6-24.odt

¶21

5. Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to

¶22

her, the delay in this matter is not important because the
informant was taking treatment for four days. Since there is a
fracture, the injury falls within the definition of grievous hurt as
defined u/s 320 of the IPC. She therefore submitted that
considering the manner of assault, anticipatory bail may not be
granted to the Applicant.

¶23

6. I have considered these submissions. Since the

¶24

informant himself had described the incident, at this stage,
there is no reason to doubt that some quarrel had taken place
between the Applicant and the informant. The delay in this case
really does not matter. The injury certificate shows that the
informant had suffered three injuries. Two injuries were in the
nature of CLW on left hand 4th finger and on the cheek
respectively. The 3rd injury was a contusion. Except the injury,
which had caused the fracture on the palm, other two injuries
were described as simple injuries. As far as the fracture is
concerned, the x-ray report shows that the fracture was

¶25

4 / 5 05-ABA-6-24.odt

¶26

involving base of 5th metacarpal on the left palm. The impression
was recorded as ‘minimally displaced fracture involving base of
5th metacarpal (left)’.

¶27

7. The fracture will be covered by the 7th category
mentioned u/s 320 of the IPC. However, at the same time,
section 322 of the IPC also requires to be considered, which
reads thus:

¶28

“322 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Whoever
voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to
cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous
hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is
said ‘voluntarily to cause grievous hurt’ ”.

¶29

8. In the background of the case, it is necessary to see the

¶30

weapon involved in this case. The Applicant was allegedly
carrying an axe and yet two simple injuries were caused. The
third injury, though it was a fracture; it was not caused with a
heavy blow of the sharp side of the axe. Therefore, at this stage,
there is reasonable scope to believe that the Applicant did not

¶31

5 / 5

¶32

05-ABA-6-24.odt

¶33

intend to cause grievous hurt, and did not have the requisite
knowledge. The incident had occurred on a spur of the moment
and the Applicant did not act in a cruel manner or had not
caused serious injury on any vital part. The act may not attract
section 326 as per section 322 of IPC. Therefore, considering the
minor nature of the incident, the Applicant can be protected by
an anticipatory bail order. His custodial interrogation is not
necessary.

¶34

9. Hence, the following order :

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.1028/2023 dated 19/10/2023, registered
with Shikrapur Police Station, Pune City, the
Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

¶37

(ii)The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Baban Kanha Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Kanha Jadhav v. the 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

Mohd. Ismail Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Dada Misale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahaji Vijay Devkate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhavesh Sunil Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra

Sadanand Manekar (Retd) Vs State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Narayan Mapuskar Vs State of Maharashtra