Dismissed

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar) and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jun 2024BA/592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a bail application in a case involving theft, dacoity, and mischief. The court rejected the argument of inordinate FIR delay, noting that accused were apprehended on spot with stolen property, leading to a prima facie opinion against them, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed as the accused were apprehended on spot with stolen property and prima facie incriminated.

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar) and Another Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:11597

¶2

943-BA-592-24.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 592 OF 2024

¶6

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar), Age 21 years, Occu. Labour, R/o. Mohanayal, Dist. Kailali, Nepal (Nepal) 2. Raju Kare Vishwakarma (Bk.) @ Chambharkami, Age 36 years, Occu. Labour, R/9o. Sadepani, Tq. Sakhan, Dist. Kailali (Nepal) .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Pranit P. Patni, Advocate for Applicants; Ms. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent

¶8

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

¶9

DATE : 21-06-2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

¶13

The applicants seek bail in C.R.No.0362 of 2023 registered with Visarwadi Police Station, Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 457 and 102B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

943-BA-592-24.odt

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. The applicants have been falsely impleaded, apprehended from the spot of accused, nothing is to be recovered from them.

¶17

The learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the application. She submits that the accused were apprehended immediately after the crime who had stolen the property. Both are the residents of Nepal. So, there are great chances of absconding. The strong evidence is available against the accused. This is not a good case for bail.

¶18

Perused the chargesheet and considered the submissions of the respective learned counsel.

¶19

Immediately after the incident, the applicants were apprehended on the spot of the incident with stolen property. They were taken to the police station and then arrested. The strong evidence of apprehension of the applicant with stolen property is against the applicant. Prima facie , there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case.

¶20

Hence, the application stands dismissed.

¶21

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶22

rrd

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar) and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Dharmaraj Soni (Sonar) and Another 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

Prashant Jalinder Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash @ Devidas @ Abba Vikram Alhat Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Pravin @ Pankaj Arun Piraji Bothe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shirish @ Munna Bhausaheb Kawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kisan @ Krishna Kunjya Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Ramhari Padwal Vs the State of Maharashtra