Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Dattatray S/O. Kisanrao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 January, 2019

Author: V. K. Jadhav

Bench: V. K. Jadhav

                                                         921-ABA-1334-2018
                                   -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

       921 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2018

                 DATTATRAY S/O. KISANRAO GAIKWAD
                                 VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    .....
             Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.
              APP for Respondent-State : Mr. A. P. Basarkar
                                    .....

                                 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
                                 DATED : 09th JANUARY, 2019

 PER COURT:-


 1.       The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in almost

 the same set of allegations and even in the backdrop of the

 aggravated allegations against the co-accused persons, learned

 Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to them,

 however rejected the application of present applicant though the

 allegations made against him are mild in nature as against the

 allegations made against the co-accused persons. Learned counsel

 submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory

 bail on the principle of parity. In the given set of allegations,

 custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all required. Learned

 counsel further submits that in respect of the same incident, brother

 of the applicant has lodged a complaint to the Police Inspector,



::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:14:53 :::
                                                           921-ABA-1334-2018
                                    -2-

 Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar alleging therein that the

 informant along with other two constables entered into the hotel,

 caused damage to the hotel property, snatched away the cash

 amount and demanded the amount illegally. Even the photographs

 about the damage to the property of hotel are annexed to the

 application. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is

 now suffering from paralysis.



 2.       Learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the

 ground that name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR with a

 specific role ascribed to him. He has not only caught hold of the

 collar of the informant but also assisted others to extend beating to

 the informant. There are specific allegations that the applicant has

 caused obstacle in the official discharge of duty of the informant.

 The applicant is thus not entitled for anticipatory bail.



 3.       On careful perusal of the investigation papers and after going

 through the allegations made in the complaint, it appears that

 allegations have been made against the co-accused to the effect that

 they dragged the informant in one lane in between Surya Hotel and

 the said Datta Hotel and further extended the beatings to him with

 fist and kick blows and also tore his uniform. However, learned


::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019                  ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:14:53 :::
                                                            921-ABA-1334-2018
                                     -3-

 Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to them.

 Even though there are allegations against the present applicant that

 he caught hold of the uniform of the informant and abused him and

 also extended beatings to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

 has rejected his application seeking anticipatory bail. In the same set

 of allegations, the other co-accused have been released on

 anticipatory bail. Thus, the principle of parity squarely applies and

 the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In the given set of

 allegations, his custodial interrogation is not required. Furthermore,

 the applicant is suffering from paralysis. Hence, considering the

 entire aspect of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

 the applicant. Hence the following order:


                                   ORDER

a. The anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.

b. The interim anticipatory bail order dated 13.12.2018 stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

c. The anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/ ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:14:53 :::