Bombay High Court
Rupesh @ Rukhadbhai Maghabhai ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 July, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:19039
32-aba1530-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1530 OF 2023
Rupesh Alias Rukhadbhai
Maghabhai Sondla ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. V.R. Kasle i/by Ms. Savina S. Bangera for the
applicant.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr. Pravin G. Sawant for the original complainant.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 11, 2023
P.C.:
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.36 of 2022
registered with Manchar (Pargaon) Police Station) for offences
punishable under Sections 307, 341, 324, 336, 337, 143, 144, 147,
148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the
applicant is seeking relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. It is the case of prosecution that one Samatbhai Algotar
lodged report on 25 March 2023 that his cousin informed him that
on 24 March 2023 at about 1.30 p.m. the present
applicant/accused and other co-accused came in the four wheeler
32-aba1530-2023.doc
at his residence and started abusing and threatening him on
account of that fact that his cousin was delivering milk in their
area. When the information and his cousin tried to run away from
that place, applicant chased and caught them and assaulted the
informant by means of scythe and beat his cousin by means of stick
and stone. Hence, report was lodged.
3. The applicant, therefore, filed application under Section 438
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Sessions
Judge which came to be rejected by order dated 21 April 2023.
The applicant, therefore, filed present anticipatory bail application.
4. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, the
victim and the applicant have amicably resolved their disputes.
They are inter se relatives. The dispute arose out of area of
operation of the applicant and informant which has now been
resolved. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant is entitled to the
relief under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
5. The law in relation to offence under Section 307 is well
settled in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Narinder
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 6
SCC 466 which was thereafter followed by the Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak reported in (2014) 10
SCC 285 and thereafter in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi
Narayan & Ors. Reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688. It has been
consistently held that the offence under Section 307 is not private
in nature but has serious impact on the society. Since the offence
under Section 307 has been termed as offence against the society,
32-aba1530-2023.doc
parameters for exercise of power under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would be same irrespective of
settlement between the parties. The Court is required to consider
nature and gravity of allegations and seriousness of the offence
amongst other factors.
6. In the facts of the case, the material on record indicates that
the applicant assaulted the informant using scythe on head. The
injury certificate dated 24 March 2023 indicates two injuries, both
are grievous in nature. The statement of witnesses attributes active
role to the applicant of assaulting the victim by scythe. Hence, the
anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained.
7. The anticipatory bail application, therefore, stands rejected.
No costs.
8. It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are only for the purposes of decision on the application
under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
However, the Trial Court while considering the application for bail
and during trial shall not be influenced by the observations made
in the present order.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
