Partly allowed

Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Nov 2024ABA/3014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed an anticipatory bail application for three applicants apprehending arrest under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 court ordered their release on bail with conditions including attending the investigating officer and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety in like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN

¶2

Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2024.11.08 19:06:43 +0530

¶3

Manoj 5-ABA-3014-2024.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3014 OF 2024

¶6

Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre

¶7

Aparna Hemanat Mhatre

¶8

Ritesh Hemant Mhatre

¶9

Akshay Haresh Mhatre …. Applicants Vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Khobragade a/w Mr. Rahul S. Yadav & Ms. Ayesha Qureshi for the Applicants.

¶12

Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶13

API. Pradip Navnath Aavhad, Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present.

¶14

CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 8^th NOVEMBER, 2024 (VACATION COURT)

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

. Learned APP submitted a report of the Investigating Officer dated 07^th November, 2024 it is taken on record.

¶17

The Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.325/2024 dated 11/10/2024, registered with Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) 191(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶18

The offence is non-bailable. Therefore, the Applicants filed an Anticipatory Bail Application in the Court of learned Additional Sessions

¶19

1/4

¶20

Manoj 5-ABA-3014-2024.doc

¶21

Judge, at Panvel-Raigad. The said Application, has been rejected by Order dated 24^th October, 2024. Hence this Application.

¶22

The prosecution case is that, on 11^th October, 2024, at about 11.00 a.m., at village Owe, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, the Applicants along with their co-accused Haresh and a juvenile boy “A” formed an unlawful assembly with common object to assault the informant, his wife Pratiksha and their children. During actual assault, Accused No.5 Haresh assaulted Nitesh, over his head by means of a wooden rod. Said Nitesh is son of the informant. Due to said assault, Nitesh suffered bleeding injury to head i.e. CLW 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm. at left temporal region. The C.T. Scan revealed that, Nitesh had suffered Small Focal Linear Hyper Intensity in the left cerebellum due to said assault.

¶23

Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that, the Applicant Nos.1 to 3 have not played active role in causing hurt to Nitesh. Insofar as the injury suffered by Pratiksha Mhatre, wife of the informant is concerned, the X-ray revealed that she has suffered chip fracture of Middle Phalynx base left finger. However, the Investigating Officer through learned APP made a statement that, the said fracture was caused due to beating by hand by the Applicant No.2. Thus, it is made clear that, the fracture suffered by Pratiksha Mhatre, was not caused by using a dangerous weapon. The Investigating Officer further made a statement that, custodial interrogation of the Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 is not needed, therefore, Anticipatory Bail may be granted on conditions, as may be

¶24

2/4

¶25

Manoj 5-ABA-3014-2024.doc

¶26

deemed just. Insofar as Applicant No.4 is concerned, in view of the role attributed to the Applicant No.4 in the F.I.R. the learned Advocate for the Applicants, on instructions, did not press his Application.

¶27

In the result, the Application deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, following Order :-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(a) The Application is allowed to the extent of Applicant Nos. 1 to 3.

¶30

(b) The Application to the extent of Applicant No.4 stands disposed of as not pressed.

¶31

(c) In the event of arrest of Applicant Nos.1 to 3 namely 1) Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre; 2) Aparna Hemanat Mhatre; and 3) Ritesh Hemant Mhatre in C.R. No.325/2024 dated 11/10/2024, registered with Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2) 191(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.

¶32

(d) Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 shall attend the Investigating Officer attached to Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 09^th to 11^th November, 2024, between 12.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.

¶33

3/4

¶34

Manoj 5-ABA-3014-2024.doc

¶35

(e) Applicant Nos.1 to 3 shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

(f) Applicant Nos.1 to 3 shall not commit any offence.

¶37

(g) Applicant Nos.1 to 3 shall furnish their contact details and appropriate address to the Investigating Officer.

¶38

1. Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶39

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

¶40

4/4

Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Ramkaran Mhatre and Ors. 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

Faiaz Akbarbasha Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Divyangbhai Kamleshbhai Raval vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Karale vs the State of Maharashtra

Ahmed Nazir Gazi vs State of Maharashtra

Divyangbhai Kamleshbhai Raval vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Chandarana vs Ms. Anushi Agarwal