Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1444 (BOM)

Rupali Anandrao lawalkar v. State of Maharashtra

2008-10-03

D.B.BHOSALE

body2008
JUDGMENT:- Heard Mr. Sejpal learned counsel for the applicants in Application Nos.3339/08 and 3340/08. Mr. Paikrao, learned counsel for the applicant in Application No.3356/08. Mr. Saste, learned A.P.P. for the, State in Application Nos.3339/08 and 3340/08 and Ms. Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State in Application No.3356/08. 2. The applicants in all the three applications are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.Nos.190/2008. 191/2008 and 188/2008 of Pantnagar police station, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. All the three crimes have been registered mainly under sections 324. 427,452 and 506(ii) of IPC. C.R.No.190/2008 came to be registered at the instance of Vimal Nangane i.e. the applicant in e.A.No.3356 of 2008 for the offence allegedly committed on 28.8.2008 at 8.30 p.m. C.R.No.191 of 2008 came to be registered at the instance of Sharada Bhagare against Rupali and her two brothers for the alleged offence that occurred on 28.8.2008 at 10.00 a.m., while e.R.No.188 of 2008 came to be registered at the instance ofRupali against Vimal Nangane, her husband - Balbhim and her son for the offence allegedly committed on 26.8.2008 at 8.00 p.m. I have perused the entire record and more particularly injury certificates of the victims. All the wounds sustained by them are described as linear abrasions and tenderness of both arms and forearm etc. According to the applicants they are all simple in nature. 3. It appears that all the applicants are cable operators and they have been in this business for quite sometime. There is a business rivalry betweeen the two i.e. the applicants in first two applications and the applicant in the third application. They have lodged several complaints against each other. However, looking to the nature of the allegations, I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary and they deserved to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest subject to strict conditions. Hence I pass the following order: In the event of arrest, all the three (applicants be enlarged on bail in the sum of (Rs.25.000/- each with one or two sureties in r the like amount till filing of the charge-sheet. subject to the following conditions: that all the applicants shall report to the concerned police station everyday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till 20th October. 2008 and thereafter every alternate day for a period of 15 days there from. subject to the following conditions: that all the applicants shall report to the concerned police station everyday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till 20th October. 2008 and thereafter every alternate day for a period of 15 days there from. The applicants shall continue to report to the concerned police station after the aforesaid period gets over on every Wednesday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till filing of the charge-sheet or for 90 days from the date of their formal arrest whichever is earlier. Upon filing of the charge-sheet the applicants shall surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for regular bail. If such applications are filed by the applicants same may be considered on the very same day and if for any reason they are adjourned, the order protecting them shall remain operative till the said applications are heard and decided on merits. The applications are. Accordingly, disposed off. Ordered accordingly.