1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1282 OF 2010 Manohar Jaya Shetty ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Mihir Gheewala and Mr.R.G. Sharma for the Applicant. Mr.M.V. Kotwal i/b. Mr.Ashish Sawant for the Intervener. Mrs.M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 9, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mrs.Tidake, learned APP for the State. 2 2 The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 504 of the IPC. It is alleged that the applicant assaulted his mother and slapped her twice and gave a blow on her head with his mobile phone. The said incident took place on 2nd January, 2010. NC complaint was lodged with the concerned police station. On 4th January, 2010, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC. The applicant was arrested on 5th January, 2010 and remanded to police custody for one day and thereafter, he was released on bail. On 22nd January, 2010, a complaint was made by the prosecution requesting the court to evaluate the new certificate which was produced by the prosecution in respect of the injury caused to the mother of the applicant. The said certificate stated that the injury was a grievous injury and therefore, bail which was granted earlier was cancelled. The applicant applied 3 for anticipatory bail. The said application, however, was rejected by the Sessions Court on 29th January, 2010. He thereafter preferred an application for anticipatory bail before this Court which was also rejected on 8th February, 2010 and the applicant was again arrested on 17th February, 2010. The applicant is in jail since then. 3 Shri Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant also had asked the Dean of Sion Hospital to give an opinion in respect of the said injury and the Dean had given that report after examining the papers and had stated in his report that the injury is simple in nature. He submitted that one other private Doctor also had given his certificate dated 11th February, 2010 and had given his opinion that the CT Scan findings appear to be an incidental finding and related to the head injury and was not associated with any neurological deficit. He submitted that there was dispute between the applicant on one hand 4 and his mother and younger brother on the other hand and several cases and cross cases have been filed by both the parties against each other. He submitted that in one case, his younger brother had fired three shots from his revolver in the lawyer s cabin where mediation was going on and as a result of the said firing, the applicant and the lawyer both were grievously injured. He submitted that case under Section 307 was pending against his younger brother. He submitted that similarly, several cases have been filed against his mother and vice-versa. He submitted that this was a case where initially complaint, though it was recorded as NC complaint, subsequently, it was converted into an FIR and offence under Sections 324, 326 was later on added. He submitted that therefore, this is a fit case to grant bail. He further submitted that the applicant has given an undertaking that he shall not stay in the same flat occupied by his mother during the pendency of the trial. 5 4 Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that certain orders were passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed by his mother under the Domestic Violence Act and the applicant committed breach of the said order as also assaulted her when the said order was still in force. He submitted that as a result of the said injury, there was damage to the brain tissue and therefore, injury was not simple injury. He further submitted that the applicant had threatened his mother on several occasions and there was every possibility that, if he released on bail, the applicant would continue to threaten his mother and her life would be in danger. It was, therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case where the bail should be granted to the applicant. 5 The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the applicant had threatened the Investigating Officer on phone and had committed breach of the order passed under the Domestic 6 Violence Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate. She submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution on 3rd April, 2010. 6 Having heard both the learned Counsel for the applicant and the complainant and the learned APP for the State, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail subject to certain conditions being imposed on the applicant. Charge sheet now has been filed. Investigation is over. There is no doubt true that several cases and cross cases are filed by both the parties against each other. Without considering the question as to whether the injury allegedly caused by the applicant is grievous or simple, in my view, since the charge sheet is filed, the continued detention of the applicant as an under trial prisoner is not necessary, particularly, taking into consideration the cases and cross-cases which are filed by both the parties against each other. Another important fact which needs to be mentioned here that when 7 initially, NC complaint was filed on 2nd January, 2010, the said complaint thereafter converted into a cognizance offence and provisions of Sections 323, 324 were added. Later on, even offence under Section 326 was added to the said offences which were registered against the present applicant. Be that as it may, as stated herein above, further detention of the applicant, in my view, is not necessary. 7 Application is allowed. 8 The application be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall not enter three flats in Blue Bird Apartment, Prabhavedi, during the pendency of the trial. The applicant shall not threaten the complainant. The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. The applicant, however, shall be permitted to remove his belongings from the said flat. Investigating Officer 8 may depute a constable in whose presence the applicant shall remove the belongings of his family by giving notice to the Investigating Officer. 9 Application, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)