Allowed

Vinod Namdev Tadak v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Apr 2024BA/791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 307/326 IPC after sickle assault causing grievous injury. Investigation complete, charge-sheet filed, no criminal antecedents, charge not framed and trial expected to be lengthy. Court enlarged applicant on bail with conditions including staying outside Karad City limits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, on conditions including exclusion from Karad City till trial concludes.

Vinod Namdev Tadak Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:17722

¶2

PMB 907.ba.791-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.791 OF 2024

¶5

VINOD NAMDEV TADAK ..APPLICANT

¶6

VS.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1408 OF 2024 IN

¶9

BAIL APPLICATION NO.791 OF 2024

¶10

ANKUSH BHANUDAS NALAVDE ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶11

Adv. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Adv. Keral Mehta a/w Adv. Vishal N. Nevshe a/w Adv. Ranjit B. Ade i/b. Adv. Vinayak Patil for the applicant.

¶12

Smt. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the State.

¶13

Adv. Nitesh J. Mohite for the intervener.

¶14

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶15

DATE : APRIL 17, 2024.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP

¶18

for the State and learned counsel for the intervener.

¶19

2. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence

¶20

punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 read with 34

¶21

of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short), under

¶22

1/5

¶23

PMB 907.ba.791-24.doc

¶24

Sections 4, 25 of Arms Act and under Sections 37(1)(3) of Maharashtra Police Act registered on 25.12.2022 vide C.R. No.1149 of 2022 with Karad City Police Station, District Satara.

¶25

3. There are in all four accused. The applicant is the accused No.1. The applicant was arrested on 25.12.2022. The accusation is that the applicant assaulted the victim with a sickle on his abdomen. The medical certificate report indicates that there is one grievous injury in abdomen and three injuries are simple in nature. No doubt the injury is serious and the victim was hospitalised for several days. Learned counsel for the victim while opposing the application for bail submitted that the victim has to still undergo treatment for the injury that he suffered.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare vs. State of Maharashtra¹ in support of his submissions. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the date of the incident there was one NC complaint lodged by the mother of the applicant that the victim had 1 2001(3) Crimes (SC) 410

¶27

2/5

¶28

PMB 907.ba.791-24.doc

¶29

come to the house of the applicant and issued threats in the

¶30

name of the applicant. There is also one FIR registered by the brother of the applicant on 20.05.2021 that the victim had threatened the applicant’s brother and demanded money by way of extortion if he wanted to carry on his business. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there are several offences registered against the victim.

¶31

5. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet is filed. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. Considering that the applicant is in custody from 25.12.2022 and as even the charge has not been framed, the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail but by imposing conditions. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant undertakes not to enter the area of the Corporation limits of Karad City till the conclusion of the trial. The statement is accepted. Hence, the following order :-

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(a) The application is allowed.

¶34

3/5

¶35

PMB 907.ba.791-24.doc

¶36

(b) The applicant-Vinod Namdev Tadak in connection with C.R. No.1149 of 2022 registered with Karad City Police Station, Satara shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶37

(c) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer at the police station nearest to his residence while residing outside Karad City once in a month every first Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.

¶38

(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶39

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶40

(f) Except for attending the trial, the applicant shall not enter the area of Karad City after being released on bail, till the trial concludes.

¶41

(g) The applicant shall not make any attempt to contact, threaten or intimidate the witnesses.

¶42

4/5

¶43

PMB 907.ba.791-24.doc

¶44

(h) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶45

6. The bail application is disposed of.

¶46

7. The interim application is also disposed of.

¶47

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶48

5/5

¶49

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2024 18:25:55

Vinod Namdev Tadak v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Namdev Tadak v. State of Maharashtra

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

Kalpesh Vijaykumar Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra

Bambam@Shankar Virendranarayan Jha and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Malang Imam Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, through the Director General

Nitin Arun Chaudhari Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hitesh Mohanlal Maru Vs State of Maharashtra