Dismissed

Sushma Ramesh Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2024ABA/3463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicants' plea for pre-arrest bail, holding that the offence was grave and serious, involving obstruction and assault of the informant while she was transporting an injured person to the hospital. The court found corroborating eyewitness accounts and concluded that releasing the applicants would hinder the investigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sushma Ramesh Pawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.12.20 00:18:50+0530 913.aba3463-24.docx

¶2

Chitra Sonawane.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Anticipatory Bail Application No.3463 of 2024

¶5

Sushma Ramesh Pawar Aged: 44 years, Occu.: Service, Jambhundpada, Dahagaon Road, Near Kirana Store, Post: Vashind, Taluka: Shahapur, District:Thane

¶6

Ramesh Dattu Pawar Aged: 58 years, Occu.: Service, Jambhundpada, Dahagaon Road, Near Kirana Store, Post: Vashind, Taluka: Shahpur, District:Thane

¶7

… Applicants/ Accused

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra Through Vashind Police Station, Taluka: Shahpur, Dist: Thane.

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Mr Manish Gaikwad, for the applicants. Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State. PSI Raosaheb Wagh, a/w. ASI Mahesh Wagh, Vashind Police Station, are present.

¶12

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 18 December 2024.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

By this application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.189 of 2024, registered at Vashind Police Station, Thane Rural, for offences punishable under

Page 1 of 4

18 December 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

913.aba3463-24.docx

Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

Heard Mr Manish Gaikwad, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that on 11 October 2024, at about 8:30 p.m., the informant’s son, Kishor, along with Arun Wagh, Pramod Wagh, Milind Waghe and Mangesh Mukane, were sitting in a ice-cream parlour Vashind. At that time Suresh Jadhav verbally abused Kishor. Later, around 9:30 p.m., the informant and her son accompanied by Arun Wagh, Pramod Wagh, Milind Waghe, and Mangesh Mukane went to Suraj Jadhav’s house to discuss the matter with his parents. However, upon finding his parents absent, they decided to return home. As they were leaving, the accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted, abused and threatened the informant, her son, and his companions. During the altercation, co-accused Rajesh attacked Milind with a sickle, causing grievous injuries. While the group was taking Milind to the hospital for treatment, accused Ramesh and his wife, Sushma (applicants), obstructed their motorcycle and assaulted her. Subsequently, the injured Milind was admitted to the

Page 2 of 4

18 December 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

913.aba3463-24.docx

primary health centre in Vashind for treatment and later transferred to the District Hospital, Shahapur, where he succumbed to the injuries.

¶27

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicants were not present at the scene when the alleged incident took place. Their names were subsequently added in the supplementary statement, and the accusations made against them are general and non-specific. Furthermore, the applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants are law abiding citizens and are willing to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant’s plea emphasising the gravity and seriousness of the offence. The applicants obstructed the informant while the injured individual was being taken to the hospital and even assaulted her. The investigation is in progress. The release of the applicants on pre-arrest bail will hinder the investigation.

¶29

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the applicants and the informant are relatives, and there has been a prior dispute between them. The investigation is at a nascent stage.

Page 3 of 4

18 December 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

913.aba3463-24.docx

The offence is grave and serious in nature. During the incident, while the informant was attempting to carry the injured to the hospital, they were obstructed and assaulted by the applicants. There are eyewitnesses who have corroborated this incident. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. As a result, the application stands rejected.

¶35

[ R.N. Laddha, J. ]

¶36

Page 4 of 4

¶37

18 December 2024

Sushma Ramesh Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sushma Ramesh Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Padmasinh Bajirao Patil vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Kutubuddin Johrali Bhopali vs Th State of Maharashtra

Yash Ganesh Bagade vs the State of Maharashtra

Adhir Prabhakar Potdar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sopan Sampat Jadhav vs Haridas Baburao Botre and Ors.

Gaurav Chandrabhan Khalde vs State of Maharashtra