Bombay HC Directs Man Accused Of Assaulting Public Servant To Deposit 10K With Police Welfare Fund As A Condition For Anticipatory Bail [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesBombay HC Directs Man Accused Of Assaulting Public Servant To Deposit 10K With Police Welfare Fund As A Condition For Anticipatory Bail [Read Order] Nitish Kashyap30 July 2020 7:56 AMShare This – xThe Bombay High Court on Monday directed a man accused of assaulting a public servant and attributing motives to him for closing down shops belonging to people from a particular community, to deposit Rs.10,000 with the Maharashtra Police Welfare Fund as a condition for granting him anticipatory bail. Justice CV Bhadang was hearing the application filed by Anwar Sayyed, who was…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Bombay High Court on Monday directed a man accused of assaulting a public servant and attributing motives to him for closing down shops belonging to people from a particular community, to deposit Rs.10,000 with the Maharashtra Police Welfare Fund as a condition for granting him anticipatory bail. Justice CV Bhadang was hearing the application filed by Anwar Sayyed, who was apprehending arrest in connection with investigation of case registered with Mumbra Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 188 of IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Contagious Disease Act, 1987 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Advocate Pankaj Pandey appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted that his client only wanted to know as to what are the particulars of the timing for which the shops were to be kept closed during the lockdown. Moreover, there was no intention to assault or prohibit the public servant from carrying out his duties. Also, except the offence under Section 353 of IPC, all other offences are bailable, Advocate Pandey said. Whereas, Additional Public Prosecutor Suraj Hulke argued that the applicant had attributed motive to the concerned public servant, saying that he was only attempting to close down the shops belonging to a particular community. The applicant was also instigating other shop owners, to disobey the orders, APP Hulke said. Court acknowledged that the APP in all fairness did not dispute that looking at the nature of the offence, there is no need for custody for effecting any recovery or for custodial interrogation. Thus, Justice Bhadang observed- “Considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for effecting any recovery and further having regard to the nature of the allegations in which the public servant concerned was allegedly prevented from performing his duties, I find that the discretion can be exercised subject to conditions.” Hence, in the event of an arrest, the applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. This shall be further subject to the condition that the applicant deposits an amount of Rs.10,000 with the Maharashtra Police Welfare Fund. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *