Allowed

Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Khamgaon City Buldana

Bombay HC19 Oct 2024BA/919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to applicants arrested for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34. The court noted their role was limited to holding the deceased, not the assault, and further incarceration was unnecessary post charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing Personal Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount, subject to conditions restricting movement and witness interference.

Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and Another Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11901

¶2

(1) 37.ba.919.2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 919 OF 2024

¶5

Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and another Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Khamgaon City

¶7

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, APP for non-applicant. /State.

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 19 /10/2024

¶10

The applicants came to be arrested on 27.05.2024 in connection with Crime No.280/2024 registered with Police Station, Khamgaon City, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the informant Gopal Prakash Soni wherein he alleged that on 26.04.2023 at 10 ‘O’ clock midnight one Vijay Sahadev Bade along with Vitthal Eknath Bade and two unknown persons came to the Pan shop of complainant and started quarreling with his father and the reason mentioned by them is that there was a quarrel between them prior to 15 days. During the altercation between them Vijay Bade and Vitthal Bade assaulted the deceased, at the same

¶12

(2) 37.ba.919.2024

¶13

time, two unknown persons caught hold the deceased and Vijay Bade gave a blow of ‘Kukari’ on the chest of the deceased and deceased succumbed to the death. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that as far as the present applicants are concerned, they were not having any enmity with the deceased and only role is attributed to them that they caught hold the deceased. At this stage, nothing is on record to show that they were aware about the intention of the co-accused and considering now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, their further incarceration is not required. There are no criminal antecedents against them.

¶15

Learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that old aged man is eliminated by the co-accused with the help of the present applicants for the trifle reasons. Though the investigation is completed the applicants were identified during the identification parade. He submitted that considering the circumstance under which the alleged incident has taken place, the application deserves to be rejected. He further submitted that if the present applicants could not have assisted the co-accused by holding the deceased, co-accused would not have in a position to

¶16

(3) 37.ba.919.2024

¶17

execute the act. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶18

After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State, perused the investigation papers from which it reveals that the role attributed to the present applicants is to the extent of holding the deceased from the back side. Considering the fact that now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and the role attributed to the present applicants is not the assault but assisting the co-accused. Considering the fact that the investigation is completed and further incarceration is not required, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i) The application is allowed.

¶21

(ii) The applicant No.(1) Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and No.(2) Vishal Baburao Ingle shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.280/2024 registered with Police Station, Khamgaon City, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not enter into the vicinity of Khamgaon, except attending the Court proceedings, till the culmination of the trial.

¶23

(4) 37.ba.919.2024

¶24

(iv) The applicants shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case either physically or by electronic media.

¶25

(v) The applicants shall attend the proceeding before the Sessions Court without seeking any exception unless there are exceptional circumstances.

¶26

The application is disposed of.

¶27

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶28

Sarkate

Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Khamgaon City Buldana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyaneshwar Tejrao Hingane and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Khamgaon City Buldana

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

Shrikant S/O Lakshmanrao Zibad Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Yashodhara Nagar Nagpur

Rushi Ramaji Naitam Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Charmoshi Tq Chamorshi Dist Gadchiroli

Roshan Mohansingh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Khamgaon City Dist Buldhana and Another

Purushottam Wasudeo Fundkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Khamgaon Rural Tq Khamgaon Dist Buldana and Another

Fahim Khan S/O Jahangir Khan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau Thr. Its Inspector

Rajendra Ganbaji Kachore vs State of Maharshtra through its police station Officer