Advocates:
['APP', 'S W SAMBRE', 'R S SURYAWANSHI', 'M V RAUT ADV']

1

58.appln.38.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.38 OF 2022

State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Commissioner of Police Rajapeth Division,

Amravati .Vs. Ravi Gangadhar Rana

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Court's or Judge's Order

Coram, appearances, Court's Orders

or directions and Registrar's order

Shri T.A. Mirza, for the applicant/State.

Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for the non-applicant.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATED : 22/08/2022

1.

This is an application for cancellation of bail

granted to the non-applicant vide order dated 05.03.2022

in Criminal Bail Application No.252 of 2022, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati.

2.

The learned APP submits that the bail was

granted on irrelevant consideration and material, and

therefore, the order granting bail is perverse and in view of

the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of

Puran Vs. Rambilas and another¹, the order is perverse and

needs to be cancelled. Accordingly, he prays for cancellation

of bail.

3.

Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the non-

applicant submits that the learned Sessions Court while

granting bail has taken into consideration all the factors

1

(2001) 6 SCC 338

C.L.Dhakate

2

58.appln.38.2022.odt

which are relevant for grant of bail and thereafter, on

recording the reasons in detail, has granted bail to the

applicant. He submits that there is no perversity committed

by the learned trial Court in granting bail. Accordingly, he

prays for rejection of the bail application.

4.

I have perused the application and the order

passed by the learned Sessions Court while granting bail to

the non-applicant.

5.

In this case, the offence was registered vide

crime no. 134 of 2022 with Police Station: Rajapeth, Dist.

Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 307,

353, 332, 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 120-B, 427, 500 and

501 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, the non-

applicant applied for anticipatory bail.

6.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Amravati, vide order dated 05.03.2022, granted

anticipatory bail to the non-applicant and while doing so,

has recorded reasons in paras-12 and 13 which reads thus:

“12. I have scrutinized the material before the

Court. The say is silent as to recovery of alleged

weapon from this applicant. In fact it shows

that, there are four culprits consisting 3 female

and 1 male, who are absconding from whom

alleged weapon screwdriver and vehicles used

are to be recovered. The FIR, say by the

C.L.Dhakate

3

58.appln.38.2022.odt

prosecution as well as the complaint did not

speak specially as to presence of the applicant as

well as the role attributed to him at the relevant

time and at place of the incident. The police

papers show that, the injured complainant has

sustained simple injuries on his chest, back of

neck with blunt object and injury to right eye

with ink. The medico legal injury report in the

name of the complaint shows nature of alleged

injuries as simple one. But the perusal of the

statements of alleged eye witnesses to the

incident, prima facie speaks that one of the

male culprits assaulted by weapon screwdriver

(pechkas) but they (witnesses) all being present

in middle it could not attack upon the

complainant. It means, the injuries shown on

the person of the injured as cited in medical

injury certificate, prima facie are not appearing

out come of use of alleged weapon screwdriver.

The case papers nowhere shows certification by

the medical officer that injuries on the person

of the complainant/injured if not treated would

have resulted into death of victim. No

allegations made either by the complainant or

by the State that the applicant is likely to

abscond, if released on bail. The offence

U/sec.307 of IPC is grave and serious but at the

same time, it is not case by the prosecution that

injured is