Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1057 (BOM)

Abhishek Vilas Pisal v. State of Maharashtra

2017-06-13

SANDEEP K.SHINDE, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.5.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in bail application preferred by the appellants. By the said order, the bail application of the appellants came to be rejected. The said bail application was preferred in C.R. No. 131/2017 of Wai Police Station, Satara. 3. The case of the first informant is that he has a mobile shop. One Mayuri used to come to his shop to recharge her mobile, hence, he got acquainted with her. On 5.5.2017 at about 5.00 p.m., the appellants came to his shop. They made him forcibly sit in a vehicle. Then they took him to the field and assaulted him with fist blows, kicks and with iron rod. The assailants were telling the first informant that he should not pursue their sister Mayuri. On account of this incident, FIR was initially lodged by the informant under Sections 324, 363, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. Later some sections of S.C. & S.T. Act were added. 4. As far as the injury sustained by the first informant is concerned, it is noticed that there is no medical report which shows that any fracture was sustained by him. 5. Learned APP pointed out that the girl Mayuri has also filed complaint against the first informant wherein she has stated that the first informant was pursuing her and used to frequently call her and try to establish contact with her. 6. As far as appellant Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, they are not named in the FIR. Moreover, though the FIR is dated 5.5.2017, till today, no further statement of the complainant has been recorded to show that appellant Nos. 3 to 5 were involved in the said case. Though these appellants are very much available and are in custody, there is no material to show that the first informant has identified these three persons as having taken part in the incident. 7. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are in custody since 8.5.2017 and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are in custody since 9.5.2017. Learned APP submitted that the first informant is not cooperating with the investigation, hence, it is not possible to complete the investigation. 7. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are in custody since 8.5.2017 and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are in custody since 9.5.2017. Learned APP submitted that the first informant is not cooperating with the investigation, hence, it is not possible to complete the investigation. Looking to the fact that there is no material to show that the first informant had sustained any fractures on account of assault sustained by him, we are inclined to grant bail to all the appellants, hence, we proceed to pass the following order :- ORDER i. Each of the appellant to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each [Rs. Thirty Thousand Each] with one or two sureties to make up the said amount and P.R. Bond in like amount. ii. The appellants shall report to Wai Police Station on every alternate day between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of one month and thereafter, they shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a month i.e on the first Sunday of every month till conclusion of the trial. 8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.