Sunil Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 504
Judgment
Heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Saste, learned APP, for the State.
The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No. 93 of 2008 of Kagal Police Station, District-Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having committed an offence punishable under sections 143,147,148,149,326,323, 504 read with 34 of IPC. The incident in question occurred on 22.8.2008 at
11.30 pm when allegedly the present applicant and six others, by forming an unlawful assembly with the weapons in their hands, assaulted complainant Shankar and his cousin brothers Ramchandra and Anil. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, he allegedly assaulted Ramchandra Patil. I perused the medical certificate issued by Rural Hospital, Dadar of all the three victims. Insofar as Ramchandra Patil is concerned he seems to have sustained CLW over his scalp which injury has been described by the Doctor as simple in nature. Even other victims have also sustained simple injury except one Shankar Patil. Shankar Patil sustained one fracture. From perusal of the FIR and the statements of other witnesses, it is clear that the present applicant is not the author of the injury sustained by Shankar. Insofar as other accused are concerned, they were arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Court. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order.
In the event of arrest, the applicant to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, on the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every day till 25.10.2008 between 10 am and 11 am and thereafter 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month for a period of 90 days from the date of his formal arrest or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier.
While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 504.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Oct 2008. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
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.