← Library
Bombay High CourtBA/778/2016bail granted

Prakash Sharnu Birajdar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2016-07-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Badar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2016 Prakash Sharnu Birajdar ... Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.

--- Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. for the Respondent - State. PSI-Mr. S. N. Tulve, (Dattawadi Police Station,Pune) is present. --- CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.

DATE : 18th JULY, 2016 P.C. :

The Applicant/accused in Crime No. 384 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune, by this application is praying for releasing him on bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/accused and the learned APP for the State. Learned APP submitted that the present applicant/accused was absconding after commission of the crime in question and on his return in December, 2015, the investigating officer 1/4

apprehended him. Learned APP further submitted that application of co-accused-Nitin Ankush Metkari came to be rejected by this court on 23.03.2015. According to the learned APP, there is reasonable apprehension that the applicant will not be available for trial and subsequently, for receiving sentence, if released on bail.

Perused the chargesheet. FIR came to be lodged on 09.09.2014 by injured-Suraj Raju Chavan. It is averred by the injured that he alongwith his friends Ram and Pappu were proceeding on his motorcycle when co-accused Nitin and brother- in-law of other co-accused person named Chocolate Sunya and two other come towards them. It is averred that coaccused-Nitin questioned injured-Suraj Chavan by stating that his brother has assaulted the young brother of co-accused Nitin. Thereafter, co-accused Nitin gave blow of Koyta on the head of informant -Suraj. Informant further reported that the brother-in-law of Chocolate Sunnya and two unknown persons assaulted him by means of fists and kick blows. Ultimately on 11.12.2015, on his arrest, the present applicant was shown to the injured and injured identified him. It is seen that injured-Suraj Chavan has suffered scalp wound at temporal region on head, causing fracture injury of a frontal bone.

2/4

It is true that this court had rejected bail application of co-accused Nitin, but role attributed to coaccused Nitin is totally different. He seems to have authored the fracture injury to the head of injured Suraj. The present applicant is stated to have assaulted the injured by means of fists and kick blows.

Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents therefore, liberty of the present applicants needs to be restored.

Learned APP apprehend that the applicant may not be available for trial. Stringent conditions can be imposed on the applicant while releasing him on bail but for only such apprehension, liberty of the applicant cannot be curtailed therefore, the following order :

ORDER

i. The bail application is allowed.

ii. The applicant/accused in Crime No. 384 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune, be released on bail on executing PR 3/4

Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and on furnishing one or more solvent sureties in the like amount. iii. As a condition of this order, the applicant/accused shall furnish his residential address to the concerned police station as well as the trial court and that he shall report changes thereof immediately to the concerned police station as well as to the trial court.

iv. The Applicant should co-operate with the trial court in expeditious disposal of the trial.

v. In addition, the Applicant/accused is directed that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of accusation against him so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts either to the Court or to any police officer and that applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

vi. The applicant should not commit any offence of similar nature in future.

vii. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. (A. M. BADAR, J.) 4/4