MHCC020002382024

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY AT BOMBAY

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2024

Madhav Mukund Phadtare,
An Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Age-35 years, Occ.Service
Residing at – Room No. 104,
1st floor, B-Wing, Jigna apartment,
Curry Road, Mumbai- 400013 … Applicant/Accused

Shridhar Charudatta Phadtare
An Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Age: 32 years. Occ: Service
R/a: Room No. 104, 1st Floor,
B-Wing, Jigna Apartment,
Curry Road, Mumbai – 400 013 ….Intervener
(Original complainant)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station ( In. C.R. No. 529/2023 ) … Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Satish Muley for applicant/accused. Ld. Advocate Mr. Sharad Raut for intervener/ Ori. Complainant. Ld. APP Mr. Siroya for State. CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI.R.R.PATARE (C.R.NO.01) DATED : 18th January, 2024.

ORAL ORDER

This application is filed Under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.529/2023 registered with N. M. Joshi Marg police station for offences punishable Under Section 307, 323, 504, 506 (2), r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Crime No. 529/2023 came to go registered on the report made by Madhav Mukund Fadtare, wherein it is stated that on 13.09.2023 around 9.45 pm the informant returned at home. At that time, his wife Rama was making cry. He noticed blood on T-shirt of his wife. He also noticed injury on the forehead of his mother. The informant took his wife and mother at police station. The wife of informant disclosed that on the same day around 9.30 pm the uncle of informant Charudatta committed house trespass and abused her and also beat her by fest and blows. The uncle of informant assaulted the mother of informant when Rama resisted him. She also informed that accused Sridhar i.e. cousin brother of informant came and assaulted Rama by means of knife on her chest. Accordingly informant made complaint to police station against both the accused.

2.Applicant/ accused is seeking bail on the ground of false implication. It is stated that applicant/accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is further stated that contents of FIR are not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 307 of IPC against the applicant/accused. It is further stated that applicant/accused is ready to abide conditions of bail. His custodial interrogation is not necessary. He requested to enlarge him on bail.

The learned advocate for the applicant/accused pointed out that co-accused Charudatta came to be
enlarged on bail vide order dated 1 st December, 2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court in Bail Application no.3422 of 2023. The learned advocate made reference to the chargesheet and tried to demonstrate variance on the point of time of incident. He further pointed that the eye witnesses to the incident made contrary statement to the report.

He would further submit that the medical report shows that simple injury is caused. He requested to enlarge the accused on bail. The learned advocate relied on the case of Abhishekh Tripathi Vs. State of
Uttarpradesh Reported in(2020) 18 SCC 441; Case of Bhausaheb Nagu Dhavare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Reported in (2001) 5 SCC 448; And Case of Pradeep Kumar V/s State of Chattisgarh Reported in 2023 (0) Supreme (SC) 214;

3.Ld APP appeared and filed reply at Exh.2 and opposed bail application. It is contended that allegations made against accused are of serious nature. There is evidence to connect accused in the commission
of offence. APP apprehends tampering of evidence and requested to reject application. Intervener/informant appeared and opposed the bail application.

4.Perused application, say and heard advocates for the parties. It is the allegation of prosecution that present applicants/accused committed house trespass along with co-accused and assaulted the wife and mother of informant. It is alleged that applicants/accused caused injury on the chest of wife of informant by knife.

It is the allegation of prosecution that accused Sridhar caused stabbed injury to the wife of
informant on chest. The allegations made against accused are of serious and grave nature. There is evidence to connect accused in the committed of offence. Tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out as pointed out by APP for State. The applicant/accused has failed to made out ground to enlarge him on bail at this stage. The facts in the case laws cited supra and the facts of the present case are not identical therefore case laws cited supra will not help the applicant accused. The role attributed to the present applicant/accused is altogether different. No allegation are made against co-accused regarding assault by knife . Allegations are made by applicant /accused has made assault by knife
on vital part of body. In such circumstances applicant/accused cannot be enlarged on bail. Hence following order

ORDER

1.Bail application No.39 of 2024 stands rejected and disposed off.

Date : 18.01.2024. Dictated on Typed on Signed on : 18.01.2024. : 18.01.2024. : 18.01.2024 (R.R.PATARE) Addl.Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, For Greater Bombay ( C.R.No.1) “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” UPLOAD DATE 19.01.2024
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G-I) Mrs. V. V. Mhatre TIME: Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri R. R. Patare (Court Room No.1) Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 18.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 19.01.2024 JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 19.01.2024