Allowed¶20

Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Oct 2024ABA/754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; R. M. Joshi, J.; 11 October 2024; ABA 754/2024; Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Ganesh Dilip Kusalkar; Crime No.0162 of 2024, Shirdi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar; Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; assault on informant Pradeep Maruti Gunjal dated 07/03/2024; property disputes and false implication; over-implication; injury certificate; co-accused Sainath iron rod; no injury on back of head; no recovery pending; cooperation in investigation; interim order dated 15/05/2024; application allowed in terms of interim order.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to both applicants (Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Ganesh Dilip Kusalkar) in terms of the interim order passed by the Court on 15/05/2024. ¶20

Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to both applicants (Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Ganesh Dilip Kusalkar) in terms of the interim order passed by the Court on 15/05/2024.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, who apprehend arrest in Crime No.0162 of 2024 of Shirdi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar (Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code), are fit to be granted anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Pre-existing disputes between the parties over property can be a reason for commission of the crime but can equally be a cause for over-implication or false implication, which weighs in favour of granting anticipatory bail.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The injury certificate supports the allegation that the co-accused used an iron rod on the informant's head, but there is no injury to the back of the head which was alleged to have been caused by applicant No.2, weakening the case against the applicants.

¶20

Key takeaways

There is no recovery to be effected from the present applicants.ratio¶20
The Investigating Agency did not contend that the applicants failed to cooperate with the investigation, which supports the grant of anticipatory bail.ratio¶20
Considering the possibility of over-implication, the case is fit for grant of anticipatory bail, and the application is allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 15/05/2024.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 754 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; R. M. Joshi, J.; 11th October, 2024) - ALLOWED. Applicants Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Ganesh Dilip Kusalkar apprehended arrest in Crime No.0162 of 2024 registered with Shirdi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from an alleged assault on first informant Pradeep Maruti Gunjal on 07/03/2024. Counsel submitted that pre-existing disputes between the parties created a possibility of false implication and that no grievous-injury allegation attracting Section 326 IPC was made against the applicants. The Court noted that the injury certificate supported the iron-rod head injury attributed to co-accused Sainath, but there was no injury to the back of the head allegedly caused by applicant No.2; the stone injury to the ribs attributed to applicant No.1 left nothing for recovery; the Investigating Agency did not allege non-cooperation; and the applicants' liberty had been protected by an interim order dated 15/05/2024. Observing that existing disputes can be both a reason for the crime and a cause of over-implication, the Court found the case fit for anticipatory bail and allowed the application in terms of the interim order of 15/05/2024.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24718

¶2

754.24aba (1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

936 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2024

¶5

Dilip Ananda Kusalkar 2. Ganesh Dilip Kusalkar ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another ...Respondents

¶6

Mr S. B. Kadu, Advocate for Applicants Mrs M. L. Sangit, A.P.P. for Respondents/State

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATE : 11th October, 2024

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.0162 of 2024, registered with Shirdi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

First informant, injured Pradeep Maruti Gunjal reported that the incident is occurred on 07/03/2024 about 6:00 p.m. It is alleged by him that, he went to Hotel Anusaya. At that time, he was assaulted by applicants and co-accused. It is

¶12

754.24aba

¶13

(2)

¶14

allegation against co-accused Sainath that he assaulted with rod on head of the informant. It is alleged that applicant No.1/Dilip caused injury on his ribs with stone and applicant No.2/Ganesh assaulted him on back of his head by wooden stick.

¶15

Learned counsel for applicants submits that, it is mentioned in the first information report that there are disputes between informant and accused. It is his submission that, due said disputes, possibility of applicants being falsely implicated in the crime is not ruled out. It is his further submission that, there is no allegation against present applicants for grievous injury to the informant and as such provision of Section 326 of the Indian penal Code could not get attracted against present applicants.

¶16

Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the statements of the witnesses as well as injury certificate. It is her submission that all accused in the crime together to crime scene with common intention to cause assault on the informant.

¶17

As such, according to her, this is not fit case for granting prearrest bail to these applicants.

¶18

754.24aba

¶19

(3)

¶20

Undeniably, there are disputes between the parties over property. Existence of disputes not only become reason for commission of crime but can be cause for over or false implication too. As far as first information report is concerned, there are allegations against co-accused that he has used iron rod for causing assault on head of informant. The said allegation gets support from the injury certificate. However, there is no injury back of his head, which is alleged to have been caused by applicant No.2. Insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned, allegation against him is that he caused injury to the informant with stone on his ribs. Thus, there is no recovery to be done from present applicants. Their liberty was protected by this Court by an interim order dated 15/05/2024. It is not the case of the Investigating Agency that applicants did not cooperate in the investigation. Considering possibility of over implication, this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to these applicant. As such, this application is allowed in terms of interim order passed by this Court on 15/05/2024.

¶21

(R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶22

sjk

Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Ananda Kusalkar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandbabu @ Shadab Razak Mukim Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhogawati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shahunagar Thr Trustee S.S. Patil vs Jaysing Gopalrao Jadhav Hujare and Ors.

Farukpasha Bashumiya Shaikh Vs Afroz Mahemud Tamboil and Another

Rushikesh Kailas Vanjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilesh Ashok Aher and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Samadhan Bapu Payal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another