ABA-2.11 v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 326, 337
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The application of applicant Nos.1, 2 and 12 is rejected.
Judgment
Shri Prakash Naik for the Applicants. Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State. Shri Harshad Palwe for the first informant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 18, 2011 P.C:
#1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by twelve persons who amongst several others are alleged to have participated in an assault on 22-10-2010. Amar Anant Meher, who had caused injury to the first informant, has been admitted to regular by the order dated 2-12-2010 wherein it is observed that the injuries suffered by the victims are all simple injuries on non-vital parts of the body. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 12 have been specifically named in the FIR and specific roles have been attributed to them. Therefore, 2 ABA-2.11 there is no question of granting anticipatory bail to them.
#2. The learned counsel for the applicants was right in submitting that there is reference to a gold chain worth Rs.22,000/- in the FIR. The FIR does not show that the chain was snatched by anyone. The learned APP has a strong objection to release of the applicants Eshwar Devendra Meher and some others on bail stating that they have got criminal antecedents. Perusal of the criminal antecedents show that the offences in which they are alleged to be involved are mainly those punishable under Sections 326 and 337 of the IPC. The learned APP also submits that a report of non-cognizable case has been made on 15-1-2011 stating that applicant Nos.6, 7 and 3 had given threats to the complainant. This application for bail itself was filed on 30-12-2010. Therefore, the value of the N.C. Of 15-1-2011 can well be imagined.
#3. In view of this the application, in so far as it relates to applicant Nos.3 to 11 is concerned, is granted. Applicant Nos.3 to 11, in the event of their arrest be released on bail in C.R. No.I-147 of 2010 of Vasai Police 3 ABA-2.11 Station, District Thane on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- per person on the condition that the applicants shall report at the police station concerned on every alternate evening between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for the next two weeks and thereafter on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. till the charge-sheet is filed. The applicants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.
#4. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 4 ABA-2.11
#5. The application of applicant Nos.1, 2 and 12 is rejected.
#6. The application accordingly stands
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 326, 337.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 18 Jan 2011. The bench was R C CHAVAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.