JYOTI SUNIL BADADHE Vs. AJIT MACCHINDRA BADADHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, the first informant, injured preferred these applications under Sec. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur to respondent no.1 in Criminal Bail Application No.66/2022 and 65/2022 by order dtd. 28/3/2022.

(2.) The applicant sought the cancellation on the grounds that the material available before the learned Sessions Judge had not been considered. Specific allegations were levelled against both respondent no.1 that they had assaulted the complainant and her father-in-law with weapons. He has referred to the First Information Report and observations recorded by the learned District Judge-1 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, and pointed out that the reasons recorded by the said Court were apparently against the fact and material before the Court. Though there were direct allegations against both respondent no.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the material and thereby granted anticipatory bail to both respondent no.1. The complainant had suffered a fracture injury, and her father-in-law was also assaulted with a wooden stick. Therefore, both applications deserve to be allowed. He relied on the case of Say Gaud Kondagaud Bhurewar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 840.

(3.) Learned counsel Ms. Pooja Lange appearing for the respondents/accused, has vehemently argued that the accused have never breached the bail conditions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had imposed various conditions not to tamper with the evidence, to attend the police station, not to leave the Indian jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court and also directed to attend the police station as and when required by the investigating officer. She would further argue that the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that no conditions were imposed is incorrect. She has also vehemently argued that the parties have inimical terms, and this aspect cannot be ignored. The order is well reasoned. The offence under Sec. 307 is not made out. She would rely on the case of Mr. Khalid Yunus Patel Vs. Mr. Aslam Abdul Rahim Patel and others, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3525, Ujwala w/o Madhukamal Hiwale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3250, The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant Co-op. Bank Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2558. She prayed to dismiss both applications.