Mangalabai Rajendra Baisane vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:11122

¶2

1 71.CA-77-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

71 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 77 OF 2024 IN APEAL/183/2024

¶5

MANGALABAI RAJENDRA BAISANE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for the Applicants : MrRahul Pandhari Cheble APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. Ashlesha S.Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S.C.Bhosale

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 15^th APRIL 2025

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. This application is for cancellation of bail granted by this court vide order dated 15.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2024. Pre-arrest bail granted to the Respondent No.2 is sought to be cancelled on the ground of breach of conditions mentioned is as follows :

¶11

“(IV) Till filing of charge-sheet and three months thereafter, appellant shall not enter village Dhamane, District-Dhule.”

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Cheble submits that following are the circumstances to demonstrate breach of condition referred above :

¶13

(i)He attended wedding ceremony at village Dhamane on 27.04.2024 which is evident from Exhibit-D.

¶14

2 71.CA-77-2024.doc

¶15

(ii)Respondent No.2 was present in the village panchayat office at Dhamane, District-Dhule on 29.04.2024, which is evident from photograph at Exhibit-C.

¶16

(iii) He was inciting villagers against informant and her family members on 03.09.2024 and complaint to that effect was made. A copy of which is tendered on record and it is marked as Exhibit-X.

¶17

Learned APP has filed affidavit-in-reply supporting the plea of cancellation of bail. Additionally, police papers are also tendered on record. She would submit that Respondent No.2 was present in the grampanchayat office and also for wedding ceremony which is in breach of conditions imposed by High Court. She reiterates that there are photographs showing his presence in village Dhamane,Dist.Dhule on both occasions supported by panchnama dated 31.01.2025 and certificate under Section 63 of Evidence Act. She would further submit that statements of informants-Nana Bhatu Baisane and Ramesh Mohan Baisane were recorded on 31.01.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel Mr.Bhosale appearing for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed submissions of applicant and learned APP. He would submit that Respondent No.2 is gramsevak rendering services in district Thane and if bail is cancelled, his services would be at stake. It is submitted that applicant has made false allegations of tampering the informant. His mother is no more sarpanch and allegations are improbable. It is submitted that he is ready to abide by any condition and even ready to stay away from the concerned

¶19

3 71.CA-77-2024.doc

¶20

village through out the trial.

¶21

As the present application is for cancellation of bail for the breach of conditions, I am not considering the matter on merits. Vide order dated 15.04.2024, the Respondent No.2 was prohibited from entering the village till filing of charge-sheet and for period of three months thereafter also. Applicant has produced on record photographs indicating that Respondent No.2 was present in the village for wedding ceremony on 27.04.2024 and thereafter in the office of village panchayat on 29.04.2024. Photographs were collected from the cell phone of one Nana Bhatu Baisane. Panchnama to that effect has been made on 31.01.2025. A certificate to that effect under section 63 of Evidence Act is also secured. Two of the photographs bear date 29.04.2024. Besides that invitation card also indicates that wedding ceremony scheduled on 27.04.2024. There is candid evidence on record to demonstrate that on two occasions, Respondent No.2 dared to commit breach of conditions imposed.

¶22

Learned APP has rightly pointed out the statements of Nana Bhatu Baisane and Ramesh Mohan Baisane recorded on 31.01.2025 to show that Respondent No.2 was present in the village. Respondent No.2 is working as gramsevak, an educated person and can not be heard of to say that his presence in the village was by sheer inadvertence. It can not be overlooked that once upon a time his mother was sarpanch of the village. In all probabilities he comes from influential background. He is working at remote place in the district Thane. Hence, there was no need for him to enter village Dhamane.

¶23

4 71.CA-77-2024.doc

¶24

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that on 03.09.2024, Respondent No.2 tried to address the villagers and incited them against applicant and her family members. Respondent No.2 appears to be emboldened person who has no regards for the orders of High Court. Considering the overwhelming evidence on record, I am inclined to allow present application.

¶25

Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶26

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶27

After pronouncement of the order, Learned Counsel Mr.Bhosale for Respondent No.2 prays for suspension of this order for the period of four weeks. The prayer is opposed by applicant and learned APP.

¶28

I have already recorded the conduct of Respondent No.2. Despite being gramsevak, he has indulged in the activities of committing breach of the order. I am not inclined to accept the prayer of Respondent No.2. The prayer stands rejected.

¶29

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶30

vsj..

Mangalabai Rajendra Baisane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalabai Rajendra Baisane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Sitaram Venikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Baburao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Nathrao Rakh Vs Archana Mohan Rakh and Another

Balasaheb Keruji Suryawanshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kiran Prakash Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akhil Mubarak Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another