aba-1103-2020 & 1104-2020.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1103 OF 2020

1.

Dhondiram s/o Sopan Veer

2.

Atul s/o Sopan Veer

3.

Tejaswini w/o Dhondiram Veer

…Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2020

1.

Anurath s/o Sopan Veer

2.

Babasaheb s/o Sopan Veer

3.

Pratik s/o Babasaheb Veer

4.

Dadarao s/o Satyabhan Veer

…Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

…

Mr. M.P. Gandle, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for the respondent-State.

...

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

DATED : 18^th DECEMBER, 2020.

ORDER:-

.

Both these applications have been fled by original

accused persons for getting bail under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, as they are apprehending their arrest in

connection with Crime No.332 of 2020 registered with Beed

aba-1103-2020 & 1104-2020.odt

(2)

Rural Police Station, District Beed for the ofences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 149, 354, 324, 323, 327, 504 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Gandle for the

applicants and learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for the respondent-

State.

3.

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the

applicants that perusal of the FIR would show that it has been

fled with malafde intention and in fact, the informant is

alleging that present applicants themselves had created a

scene that they have been assaulted. A non-cognizable

ofence was fled by accused no.1 Anurath on 11.10.2020 at

about 11.30 am against the husband of the informant in

respect of the incident of the same day i.e. 11.10.2020. Now,

the informant has fled FIR on 14.10.2020 in respect of the

incident dated 11.10.2020. First page of the FIR wrongly

mentions it as 13.10.2020 when in fact, it is apparent from the

contents of the FIR that the incident had taken place on

11.10.2020. Thus, it can be seen that there is apparent delay

in lodging the FIR and it was just to save the informant, her

husband and relatives. One more FIR has been lodged by one

Babasaheb Sopanrao Veer in respect of the incident dated

11.10.2020 vide Crime No.339 of 2020 registered with the

same police station for the ofences punishable under Sections

326, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 read with 34 of the

aba-1103-2020 & 1104-2020.odt

(3)

Indian Penal Code. In fact, applicants had received injuries in

the attack by the husband of the informant and her relatives.

Physical custody of the applicants is not required, therefore,

they deserve to be released on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed both the

applications stating that from the FIR it is very much clear that

weapons have been used in commission of the crime and they

are required to be recovered. Further, the accused persons

had even raised a question as to why the cremation has taken

place in fact, the father-in-law of the informant had expired and

it would have been proper for the son of deceased i.e. husband

of the informant to do the last rites of his father, yet, at that

time unnecessary dispute has been raised. The medical

certifcate of the husband of the informant in not yet received

and therefore, physical custody of the applicants is required.

5.

It is to be noted that though, it is stated that some

of the accused persons have used weapons, yet, the ofence

that has been registered is under Section 327 of the Indian

Penal Code, which contemplates only hurt and therefore,

recovery of weapon cannot be the criteria for curtailing their

liberty. Other ofences are almost bailable and therefore,

without even going into the details of the manner in which the

alleged crime had taken place, physical custody of the present

applicants is not required.

aba-1103-2020 & 1104-2020.odt

(4)

6.

Perusal of the documents would also show that one

N