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
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)
… Applicant/Accused
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.

:2:
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
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
:3:
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
:4:
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)
:5:
“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