Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Shri Sitaram S/o Rangnath Roundal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1461 of 2021 with Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1513 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2022
V.D.Sapkal, Advocate Adinath B.Jagtap, Advocate Rahul R.Karpe, Advocate A.M.Phule, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation in cases involving serious criminal offences and conflicting claims, and rejected the applications for anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code - Ss. 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 - The court discussed the seriousness of the offences, the manner in which the offences were committed, and the need for thorough investigation. The court rejected the applications for anticipatory bail, stating that no case was made out to exercise extraordinary powers under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favor of the applicants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved cross cases arising from a dispute between two families, with each party filing First Information Reports against the other for serious criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seriousness of the offences and the manner in which they were committed warranted thorough investigation, and rejected the applications for anticipatory bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conflicting First Information Reports, the severity of the injuries sustained by the parties involved, and the need for a detailed investigation into the alleged criminal acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the need for anticipatory bail, the seriousness of the offences, and the requirement for thorough investigation into the conflicting claims made in the First Information Reports.
Final Decision: Both the applications for anticipatory bail were rejected, and the interim protection granted earlier was terminated.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
What is the standard for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in cases involving cross F.I.Rs and serious offences?
What are the factors considered by the Bombay High Court to reject anticipatory bail applications in cases of acid attack and related offences?
What are the implications of conflicting first information reports on the exercise of extraordinary powers under Sec. 438 CrPC?
JUDGMENT
VIBHA KANKANWADI,J. - Both these Applications are arising out of cross cases and for the sake of convenience those are taken together for the decision.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1461 OF 2021
2. Applicant in this Application is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.313 of 2021 registered with Sonai Police Station, Taluka-Newasa, District-Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Ss. 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard learned senior Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent - State.
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated when in fact applicant 's wife has also filed First Information Report on 18/11/2021 before the same Police Station. Wife of the present applicant had suffered burn injuries due to the acid attack by the informant 's side and therefore, she was admitted to Burn Center at Ahmednagar and from there, she has filed the First Information Report. In order to give a counter blast to that First Information Report, the First Information Report against the present applicant has been filed. The applicant in this case is serving as Associate Professor at Sonai College and he is also recognized Ph.D. Guide since 14/3/2012 in the faculty of commerce. He is Doctor of Philosophy and is working on various authorities in Savitribai Phule Pune University. There was rivalry since past between the family of the informant and the applicant which came to be developed because of the act of the informant 's husband. One lady residing in the neighbour-hood had filed report against the informant and her husband for the offence punishable under Ss. 354-A and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. The present applicant and his wife are the witnesses to the said incident. The informant and her husband are annoyed with the fact that the applicant and his wife would give evidence against the informant and her husband. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all required for the purpose of the investigation and the co-accused in this crime have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court itself.
5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the application and submitted that a serious offence has been committed by the present applicant. The husband of the informant was brutally assaulted by the applicant and coaccused but any how, he has survived. There were disputes between the two families in the past and on that count the applicant and co-accused had gathered as members of unlawful assembly and they were armed with dangerous weapons like axe, iron rods and stick. Though the initial dispute was by the side of the road in front of the house of the informant, yet, after the informant and her daughter were man-handled and thrown on the ground from raised platform ( "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." ), the applicant and coaccused barged into the house of the informant. Present applicant and co-accused Rajendra Anarase had entered the house and assaulted husband of the informant with axe on his forehead with an intention to kill. Though one axe is seized from co-accused Rajendra, the other weapons are required to be recovered which were used by the present applicant in the commision of offence. Detailed investigation is contemplated in view of the fact that the applicant and co-accused are neighbours and definitely they would have had hatched up a conspiracy. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the injured had taken initial treatment at Ahmednagar and then was shifted to Sasoon Hospital, Pune, applicant does not deserve any sympathy.
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1513 OF 2021
6. The applicant in this case is the injured husband of the informant who had lodged the First Information Report and registered as Crime No.313 of 2021 which is against the applicant in
