Allowed

Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC9 Oct 2024ABA/503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a third anticipatory bail application, holding that recovery of evidence at the instance of the accused during pendency of the application constituted a substantial change in circumstances, justifying release even after previous rejections.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed by confirming interim order dated 22.04.2024.

Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke and Another Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24338

¶2

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 503 OF 2024

¶5

1. Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke

¶6

2. Piraji Dhondiram Ghodke

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1935 OF 2024
 IN ABA/503/2024

¶11

Ishwari W/o Limabaji Ghodke

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

The State Of Maharashtra And Other

¶14

Mr. U. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondents
Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for Applicant/Informant

¶15

¶16

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 09, 2024

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

1.At the outset, learned Counsel for the

¶19

Informant seeks leave to assist the APP.

¶20

2.Considering the nature of offence, leave

¶21

granted. Criminal Application No. 1935/2024 stands
disposed of.

¶22

3.This is third bail application before this

¶23

Court for anticipatory bail.

¶24

PAGE 1 OF 8

¶25

Umesh

¶26

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶27

4.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submit that
during the pendency of this Application on 24.04.2024
there is recovery of the bottle allegedly containing
petrol which was allegedly poured on the informant on
14.01.2023 and matchstick. Thus, it is his contention
that though this is third application for anticipatory
bail, in view of the change in circumstance, the same
deserves to be entertained.

¶28

5.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with
with C.R. No. 17 of 2023 registered with Jalkot Police
Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 326, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

6.FIR indicates that informant who is wife of
the Applicant No. 1 and sister-in-law of Applicant No.

¶30

2 used to make grievance to her husband about her father-in-law and brother-in-law having evil eye on her. This grievance was never entertained by the husband. On the contrary, he used to abuse and beat her. It is stated that on 14.01.2023 the husband had abused and beaten her with fist and kick blows. There Umesh PAGE 2 OF 8

¶31

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶32

is allegation that father-in-law caughthold of her and
her husband poured petrol on her person. Brother-in-law
brought matchstick to set her on fire. At that time, co
sister of informant came to the spot and she prevented
them on setting informant on fire. Thereafter, the
clothes wore by informant at that time were burnt by
the co-sister and mother-in-law of the informant. It is
alleged that on next day i.e. 15.01.2023 she had called
her parents and brother to her matrimonial home wherein
they were assaulted by Applicants and co-accused.

¶33

7.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submit that
charge-sheet was filed in this case on 04.07.2023 and
thereafter, present application came to be filed
wherein interim relief was granted by this Court on
22.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, there is recovery of the
petrol bottle and matchstick done at the instance of

¶34

Applicants. Thus, it is his contention that this
amounts to substantial change in circumstance to
entertain the application. It is his submission that in
view of the fact that charge-sheet is filed and there
is recovery of articles at the instance of accused,
further custody of the Applicants is not called for.

¶35

Umesh PAGE 3 OF 8

¶36

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶37

8.learned Counsel for the Informant strenuously
opposed the application by pointing out that this Court
by passing reasoned order dated 20.06.2023 in ABA No.
304/2023 has rejected the application for anticipatory
bail and the said order is confirmed by the Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)
No.8743/2023. He also submits that at the time of
filing of the application, there was no change in
circumstance and as such, the application cannot be
entertained in view of the settled position of law. He
also drew attention of the Court to the observations
made by this Court as well as Sessions Court while
rejecting the successive applications for bail. It is
his submission that having regard to the nature of
offences and seriousness thereof, it is not a fit case
for anticipatory bail. He also made grievance about the
Applicants going absconding for the period of more than
a year and it is only after the interim relief granted
by this Court, they appeared before the investigating
officer. This, according to him, becomes ground for
rejection of the application.

¶38

PAGE 4 OF 8

¶39

Umesh

¶40

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶41

9.Learned APP opposed the application on the

¶42

ground of there are statements against the Applicants
showing their involvement in the incident of 14.01.2023
as well as 15.01.2023. It is his submission that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the
bail has observed that after the incident, accused were
absconding for a long period and in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem
Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Another,

¶43

Criminal Appeal No. 1209/2021, the present application
deserves to be rejected.

¶44

10.There is no dispute about the fact that mere
filing of the charge-sheet does not amount to change in
circumstance to entertain successive bail applications.
Though, in the instant case at the time of filing of
the application there was no change in circumstance,
however, before deciding present application and on the
basis of grant of interim relief, there is recovery
done at the instance of the Applicants and this
certainlyamountstosubstantivechangein

¶45

circumstances. Question before this Court as to whether such recovery can be ignored and it could not be called Umesh PAGE 5 OF 8

¶46

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶47

as change in circumstance. In considered view of this
Court, it would be too technical view to adopt that the
change in circumstance is ignored on the ground that
the change occurred during pendency of application. In
view of substantial change in circumstance before
deciding this application, same is entertained.

¶48

11.Previous bail application was rejected by this
Court on 20.06.2023 whereas charge-sheet is filed on
04.07.2023. It is thereafter on 22.04.2024 in the
present application interim relief was granted by this
Court to the Applicants. On 24.04.2024 pursuant to said
interim relief, there is a recovery of petrol bottle as
well as matchstick under panchnama. A query was raised
to the learned APP to show any reason for which custody
of the present Applicants is required. Nothing in this
regard was pointed out but seriousness of the crime is
cited.

¶49

12. No doubt, offence is serious in nature as observed by this Court in order dated 20.06.2023. However, now with the change in circumstance, there is no reason or justification for their custodial Umesh PAGE 6 OF 8

¶50

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶51

interrogation after recovery of articles and conclusion
of investigation after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶52

13.In so far as allegation of the prosecution
about abscondence of the Applicants is concerned,
admittedly no proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure are initiated and Applicants
are not declared absconded by any competent Court of
law.

¶53

14.As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court cited supra, therein proceedings were initiated
under Section 82 and 83 CrPC against accused and the
said fact was ignored by the High Court. In respectful

¶54

view of this Court, the said judgment has no
application to this case. Apart from this, it is
pertinent to note that Applicant No. 1 is the member of
armed forces and, therefore, it was very well possible
for investigating agency to take steps for his custody.

¶55

However, there is no evidence showing that
investigating agency has taken any steps to secure
presence of the Applicants.

¶56

PAGE 7 OF 8

¶57

Umesh

¶58

932-ABA-503-2024.odt

¶59

15.Since the investigation is complete with

¶60

filing of charge-sheet, Applicants custody is not
necessary. They cannot be kept behind the bar by way of
pre-trial sentence. Hence, application is allowed by
confirming interim order dated 22.04.2024.

¶61

PAGE 8 OF 8

¶62

Umesh

Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Subhash Baburao Muttyal vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Mumbai and Anr.

Mohammed Islam @ Babbu @ Shahrukh Gulam Husain Indreshi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Navnath Dattatray Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Dilip Arak Vs the State of Maharashtra