Dismissed

Mauli @ Dnyaneshwar Appaso Shelke v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Feb 2024BA/802/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a case arising from a Gram Sabha altercation involving sword attack allegations under Sections 307 and related IPC provisions. The court noted the applicant's major role, ongoing investigation and a prior criminal antecedent, and dismissed the bail application with liberty to apply after charge-sheet.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mauli @ Dnyaneshwar Appaso Shelke Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

917-BA-802-2024.DOC
Sonali

¶2

2024:BHC-AS:9350

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.802 OF 2024

¶6

Mauli @ Dnyaneshwar Appaso Shelke …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶7

Mr. Pranav H. Bhoite, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Shriram S. Chaudhari, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. S. V. Chavan, P.S.I., attached to Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural
present.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 27^th FEBRUARY 2024

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Bhoite, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶11

Applicant and Mr. Chaudhari, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.

¶12

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

¶13

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are
as follows:-

¶14

1.C. R. No.80 of 2024
2.Date of Registration of F.I.R.26/01/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

917-BA-802-2024.DOC
Sonali

¶17

`3.`	`Name of Police Station`	`Yavat Police Station,` `Taluka-Daund,` `District-Pune`
`4.`	`Section/s invoked`	`307, 143, 147, 148` `and 149 of the I.P.C.,` `1860 and 4 and 25 of` `the Arms Act, 1959.`
`5.`	`Date of Incident`	`26/01/2024`
`6.`	`Date of Arrest`	`27/01/2024`

¶18

3.As per the prosecution case, a Gram Sabha of village
Kangaon, Taluka-Daund, District-Pune was held on 26th January
2024. In the said Gram Sabha, there was some altercation between
the Informant and the present Applicant. Thereafter, the present
Applicant told other Accused to get a sword to kill the
Complainant. The relevant portion in the F.I.R. is as follows:-

¶19

“ vkeps xkokrhy Kkus’oj mQZ ekmyh vkIiklks ‘ksGds gk xzkelsod eksgu felkG ;kapsdMs vkyk o ‘ ek>k vtZ ?;k ’ vls cksyyk R;k osGh eh xzkelsodkauk cksyyks dh ‘ vtZ ns.;klkBh lkr fnolkaph eqnr vlrs rh eqnr laiq.k xsyh vkgs rjh rqEgh vtZ fLodk: udk ’ R;kosGh ek>h o Kkus’oj mQZ ekmyh ‘ksGds ;kaph ckpkckph >kyh R;kosGh Kkus”oj ‘ksGds R;kps esgwus oSHko lat; fuxMs] v{k; lat; fuxMs] o vksadkj jktsanz fuxMs ;kauk ‘ tkok js ryokjh ?ksowu ;k ;kyk vkt ftoar lksMk;ps ukgh ’ vls Eg.kkykrsOgk rs loZtu rsFkqu mBqu /kkor foBBy eafnjkps “kstkjhp vl.kkjs R;akps ?kjh xsys o R;kiSdh oSHko lat; fuxMs] v{k; lat; fuxMs gs nks?ks gkrkr yks[kaMh ryokj o vksadkj jktsanz fuxMs gk R;kps gkrkr yks[kaMh dks;rk ?ksowu /kkor efnjk ‘kstkjh ;sowu ‘ ;k jktsanz xoGhyk [kYykl djrk ’ s vls Eg.kwu v{k; lat; fuxMs ;kus ek>s ekusoj R;kps gkrkrhy ryokjhus okj dsyk R;kosGh ek>k iqr.;k oSHko “kkarkjke xoGh ;kus eyk okpo.;klkBh gkrkus ryokjhpk

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

917-BA-802-2024.DOC
Sonali

¶22

okj >syyk R;kosGh R;kps Mkos gkrkps iatkyk xaHkhj nq[kkir >kyh o eksB;k izek.kkr jDr okgw ykxys R;kosGh ‘ rw ryokj dk idMyh ’ s vls Eg.kwu oSHko lat; fuxMs ;kus R;kps gkrkrhy ryokjhus ek>k iqr.;k oSHko ‘kkarkjke xoGh ;kps ikBhr okj d:u nq[kkir dsyh o v{k; lat; fuxMs gk ijr ek>s MksD;kr okj dj.;klkBh vkyk------- ”

¶23

(Emphasis added)

¶24

4.Thus, it is clear that the major role in the incident in
question is that of the Applicant.

¶25

5.Mr. Chaudhari, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
State submitted that there is one criminal antecedent against the
Applicant being C.R. No.60 of 2023 registered with Yavat Police
Station, Taluka- Daund, District-Pune for the offence punishable
under Sections 353, 332, 341, 342, 504, 506, 143, 147 and 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

6.As the investigation is still in progress and the Applicant is
having a major role in the offence, this is not a fit case for granting
bail at this stage. However, the Applicant is at liberty to file a Bail
Application before the learned Trial Court or before this Court after
filing of the Charge-sheet.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

917-BA-802-2024.DOC
Sonali

¶29

7. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶30

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶31

Signed by: Sonali Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2024 19:45:36

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Mauli @ Dnyaneshwar Appaso Shelke v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mauli @ Dnyaneshwar Appaso Shelke v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Vilas Gorane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham @Sonu Sanjay Dheb and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sarika Bapu Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj @Dhanaji Madhukar Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Nana Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Deepak Rajendra Gorawale Vs State of Maharashtra