Allowed¶33

Sudhir Kishor Patil @ Mantri v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Feb 2025ABA/470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail - Section 482 BNSS 2023 - accused no.2 in C.R. No. 19/2025, Charkop Police Station, Mumbai - offences under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 BNS 2023 - parity with co-accused (accused no.1) granted pre-arrest bail in ABA No. 325/2025 by order dated 4/2/2025 - P.R. bond Rs. 30,000/- - conditions: report to IO, no interference with witnesses, no tampering - Bombay High Court, Rajesh S. Patil J., 20 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in connection with C.R. No. 19/2025 (Charkop Police Station, Mumbai): in the event of arrest, release on P.R. bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount; applicant to report to the investigating officer when required; barred from interfering with the complainant/witnesses or tampering with evidence. ¶33

Sudhir Kishor Patil @ Mantri vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 should be granted to the applicant (accused no.2) in C.R. No. 19/2025 of Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶18

Court's answer

The Court held that the case is made out to allow the anticipatory bail application of the applicant (accused no.2) on the same conditions as imposed on accused no.1 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 325/2025.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest in connection with C.R. No. 19/2025 of Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount.

¶38

Key takeaways

Condition imposed: the applicant shall report to the concerned investigating officer when the need arises according to investigation.ratio¶39
Condition imposed: the applicant shall not interfere with the complainant and other witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by accused no.2, Sudhir Kishor Patil @ Mantri, in C.R. No. 19/2025 of Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (FIR dated 11th January 2025). Granting bail on parity with this Court's order dated 4/2/2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 325/2025, by which accused no.1 had been granted pre-arrest bail, the Court directed release on a P.R. bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more like sureties in the event of arrest, subject to reporting to the investigating officer as required and to non-interference with the complainant and witnesses and no tampering with evidence.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:8272

¶2

Diksha Rane 918 ABA 470-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 470/2025

¶5

SUDHIR KISHOR PATIL @ MANTRI ..APPLICANT VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Adv. Neha Rane a/w. Adv. Gaurav Ombale i/b. Adv. Prasad Panchal for applicant.

¶7

Mr. Ajay S. Patil, APP for State. PSI Sachin Sonawane, Charkop Police Station.

¶8

PSI Maruti Hirve (Pairavi), Charkop Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of

¶13

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in respect of the C.R. No. 19/2025 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on 11^th January 2025.

¶14

2. The present application is filed by the accused no.2. By an order dated 4/2/2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 325/2025 in the matter of accused no.1 this Court had allowed the

¶15

¶16

Diksha Rane 918 ABA 470-2025.doc

¶17

application for pre-arrest bail on certain conditions. For ease of reference, the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶18

This is an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in respect of the C.R. No. 19/2025 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on 11^th January 2025.

¶19

It is the case of the prosecution that on 9^th January 2025, at 4:00 a.m., the first informant, who is a police official, was taking a walk at Raje Shivaji Maidan, behind the society where he resides. At that time, the present applicant approached and started arguing with the informant. As the argument escalated into a heated exchange of words, the present applicant, who is accused No. 1, called his two friends. The three of the accused, thereafter, started abusing the informant and in fact they physically assaulted the informant and the present applicant (accused no.1) picked up a stone and was attempting to hit the informant on his forehead, however, the informant saved himself. But, the stone injured on his hand. It is the case of the prosecution that by the said stone the applicant hit the informant on face, chest and stomach. All the three persons who were abusing the informant, are arraigned as the accused. Accused nos. 2 and 3 Sudhir and Bhagesh are absconding. As regards the present applicant, who is arraigned as accused no.1, had applied for the anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 24^th January 2025 rejected the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident allegedly happened on 9^th January 2025, at 4.00 a.m. and if it is considered that the informant was a police official who is well versed with law, the FIR was lodged by him only on 11^th January 2025, at 23:24 hours which is approximately after sixty hours. Therefore, the motive of filing of the FIR should be considered by this Court and there is no need to take the present applicant in custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶21

The learned APP appearing for the State submits that the informant is the police official and he was taking a walk in the morning at 4.00 a.m. when the present applicant came in the said garden and stated abusing the informant. The learned APP submits that the medical report of the informant shows that there is abrasions on the nose and the forehead. He further submits that there is one more case registered against the present applicant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He further submits that the custody of the applicant is required in order to take more information about two other accused and if he is released on anticipatory bail, there is likelihood to tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶22

¶23

Diksha Rane 918 ABA 470-2025.doc

¶24

I have gone through the copy of the FIR. It seems that in a heat of argument between the informant and the present applicant at 4.00 a.m. the alleged incident happened. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the accused no.1 was in the garden during the early hours because cricket matches had been played the previous night. In fact the applicant was calling his friend, accidentally the informant thought that the present applicant is calling him. There was identity mistake because of which alleged incident occurred. There was no motive of the present applicant to attract the offences punishable under Sections 110, 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant in fact comes from the very humble background and he is working with a person who sells vada-pav on cart. In view of the above, the case is made to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Hence, the following order:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(a) The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶27

(b) In the event of arrest in connection with C.R. No. 19/2025 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount.

¶28

¶29

(d) The applicant shall not interfere with the complainant and the other witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶30

3. According to me, the case is made out to allow this application

¶31

on the same conditions. Hence, the following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(a) The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶34

(b) In the event of arrest in connection with C.R. No. 19/2025

¶35

registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 324(4), 352 of

¶36

¶37

Diksha Rane 918 ABA 470-2025.doc

¶38

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount.

¶39

¶40

(d) The applicant shall not interfere with the complainant and the

¶41

other witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶42

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶43

¶44

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/02/2025 10:08:20

Sudhir Kishor Patil @ Mantri v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kishor Patil @ Mantri v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sultan Sirajuddin Yasin vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haider Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Virendra Narayan Wankhede and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kavita Vithoba Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

Khushal Bhanudas Tapkir vs State of Maharashtra

Venketesh Vaijgaa Appani and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra