Rajesh Damodar Sankhe And Ors. vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application for Applicant No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner of GST) and Applicant No. 2 (Village Development Officer). The Court reasoned that since these applicants allegedly mounted an attack with iron rods, and the complainant and Jayandra Pimpale sustained injuries, custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court held that for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, the intention, rather than the severity of the injury, is paramount. However, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Applicant No. 3 (Amit M. Sankhe), noting that a general role of assault was attributed to him without corresponding injuries found on the victims. This relief was granted subject to his cooperation with the investigation.

Facts

The applicants, including a Deputy Commissioner of GST, a Village Development Officer, and a Junior Assistant, sought anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 162 of 2022 registered at Palghar Police Station under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a land dispute between the applicants and the complainant's family. The complainant alleged that Applicant No. 1 assaulted him with an iron rod, causing injuries to his head and hand, while other applicants assaulted him and Jayandra Pimpale with rods, sticks, and fists. Medical reports indicated abrasions and contusions on the complainant and Jayandra Pimpale, with Jayandra Pimpale sustaining a fracture.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants, particularly Applicant No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner of GST) and Applicant No. 2 (Village Development Officer), are entitled to anticipatory bail given the allegations of assault with dangerous weapons and the invocation of Section 307 of the IPC? The applicants argued that the incident arose from a civil land dispute and that the injuries sustained were not severe enough to warrant denying anticipatory bail, particularly for Applicant No. 3 who was attributed a general role. The State contended that the use of iron rods and the invocation of Section 307 IPC, coupled with the injuries sustained by the complainant and Jayandra Pimpale, necessitated custodial interrogation and justified the rejection of anticipatory bail for the primary assailants.