Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe and Another vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe and Another vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application of Applicant No. 2 (Nyaneshwar/Nnyaneshwar Mahadev Humbe) allowed in terms of the interim order; application of Applicant No. 1 (Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe) rejected with interim protection removed, but the interim order dated 18.06.2024 extended for four weeks, with clarification that he not be treated in police custody for any purpose during that period.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Applicant No. 1 Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe, who apprehends arrest in Crime No. 0219/2024 (Jamkhed Police Station) for offences including under Section 307 IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie there is substance in the allegation that Applicant No. 1 was carrying a knife and caused three injuries to the ribcage of the informant; the offence under Section 307 IPC is attributable to Applicant No. 1.

Ratio / Principle

This is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail to Applicant No. 1; his application stands rejected.

Key takeaways

Protection of the interim order is removed so far as Applicant No. 1 is concerned because the weapon used in the crime is yet to be recovered despite his attendance before the investigating agency for about 4 months, in order to enable proper investigation and recovery of the weapon.ratio¶5
Only one injury, simple in nature, is caused to the witness allegedly assaulted by Applicant No. 2 with a stick; having regard to this, his application for anticipatory bail stands allowed in terms of the interim order.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 955 of 2024, decided 18.10.2024 by R. M. Joshi, J.: Applicants Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe and Nnyaneshwar Mahadev Humbe sought pre-arrest protection in Crime No. 0219/2024 of Jamkhed Police Station, District Ahmednagar (Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC), arising from an altercation of 23.04.2024 in which informant Pawan Chavan sustained bleeding injuries, including three injuries to his ribcage allegedly inflicted by Applicant No. 1 with a knife, while the informant's father allegedly suffered one simple injury from a wooden stick wielded by Applicant No. 2. Prima facie finding the Section 307 offence attributable to Applicant No. 1, and noting that the weapon remained unrecovered despite about four months' attendance by him before the investigating agency, the Court held this not a case for grant of anticipatory bail to Applicant No. 1, rejected his application and removed interim protection; however, on his counsel's request, the interim order dated 18.06.2024 was extended for four weeks to enable him to challenge the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with clarification that he not be treated in police custody for any purpose during that period. Finding only one simple injury against Applicant No. 2, the Court allowed his application in terms of the interim order.

1 -

aba955.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

926 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 955 OF 2024

Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe

Nnyaneshwar Mahadev Humbe ….Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others ...Respondents

Mr. N. C. Garud, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. M. L. Sangeet, APP for the State.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18^th OCTOBER, 2024.

PER COURT :

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 0219/2024, registered with Jamkhed Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

First Information Report lodged by Pawan Chavan indicates that an incident had occurred on 23.04.2024 in which there was altercation between him and accused persons. Accused started abusing and assaulting him. There is allegation against Applicant No. 1 that he had a knife with him and he caused assault with the

2 -

aba955.24.odt

said knife on the ribs of the informant. He sustained bleeding injuries. There is allegation against Applicant No. 2 that he caused assault with wooden stick on his head.

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that there is a counter report in respect of the same incident. It is his submission that possibility of over implication cannot be ruled out. He claims that liberty of the Applicants was protected and that the Applicants have attended the concerned police station. He further states that the Applicants would cooperate in the investigation for recovery of the weapon. He, therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.

Learned APP opposed the application by contending that the report lodged by Applicants’ side is later in point of time. She drew attention of the Court to the injury certificate indicating causing of three injuries on the ribcage of the informant. There is a statement of eye-witness who has corroborated the version of the informant in this regard.

Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is substance in the allegation against Applicant No. 1 that he was

3 -

aba955.24.odt

carrying knife with him and he has caused three injuries to the ribcage of the informant. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of learned APP that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is attributable to Applicant No. 1. The weapon used in the crime is yet to be recovered. Inspite of attendance of Applicant No. 1 before the investigating agency for about 4 months, recovery could not be done. It is therefore, just and necessary to remove protection of the interim order in order to enable the investigating agency to carry out proper investigation and to recover the weapon. So far as Applicant No. 1 Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe is concerned, this is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, his application stands rejected.

As far as Applicant No. 2 Nyaneshwar Mahadev Humbe is concerned, though there is allegation against him that he caused assault with stick on the head of father of the informant, there is one injury caused to the said witness which is simple in nature. Having regard to the said fact, application to the extent of Applicant No. 2 stands allowed in terms of interim order.

aba955.24.odt

Learned counsel for Applicants seeks continuation of interim protection granted in favour of Applicant No. 1 Manoj @ Utreshwar Mahadev Humbe for a period of four weeks to enable him to challenge this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Learned APP opposed the application considering the seriousness of the crime.

Since there was interim relief granted protecting Applicant No. 1 from arrest during the pendency of this application said order dated 18.06.2024 is extended for a period of four weeks. It is clarified that Applicant No. 1 not to be treated in the custody of the police for any purpose during continuation of protection from arrest.

dyb