Aditya Shashikant Gangurde Vs State of Maharashtra Nashik Sessions Court BA 562 of 2022

CNR No.

MHNS010022862022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.562 /2022
( Aditya Shashikant Gangurde(accused 6) Vs. State )
This is application for pre­arrest bail u/s. 438 of the
Cr.P.C. in C. R.63 of 2022 registered with Mhasrul Police Station,
Nashik u/ss.307,326,324,143,144, 147,148, 149,504,506 of The Indian
Penal Code(IPC) and u/s.4/25 of The Indian Arms Act.

2.
submits
The learned counsel Mr.R.D. Ahwad for the applicant
that, applicant is
innocent person and
he has
no
concern with offence. At the time of incident, he was at his home.
There is apprehension of his arrest. He is ready to abide by any of
the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. He has got
fix and permanent place of residence and undertakes to cooperate
investigation.
3.

Learned APP Mr. R.M. Baghdane, by filing pursis
(Exh.8) adopted say (Exh.7) filed by Investigation officer (I.O.) and
strongly objected this application. I.O. is present alongwith police
case papers.
4.

It is the case of prosecution that, on 30.04.2022 at
12.45 p.m. at Swami Vivekanand Nagar, near Amol Kirana shop
and Khushi Residency, below Neem tree when Aditya Pingale son
of informant was standing,accused Suraj Chaorskar,Chetan Chatur,
Sonu Korale, Harsha Kakad, applicant Adtiya Gangurde, Gaurav
Thorat, Ajas and other accused came by motorcycle bearing No.
MH15/DF 8024, having Koyata, Sword, wooden log in their hands
..2..

came there and struck him by said weapons and by fist and kick
blows. Due to which Aditya Pingale fell down. Thereafter, they ran
away from the spot. Hence, informant lodged report against
accused.
5.

Perusal of record reveals that, offences are serious in
nature. Prosecution witnesses state about direct involvement of the
accused in the crime. Lethal weapons are allegedly used in the
aforesaid crime. Victim has sustained serious injures which are
simple as well as grievous in nature. Offence is serious in nature
and it is punishable with life imprisonment. In the circumstances,
custodial interrogation is necessary. Applicant may hamper or
tamper prosecution witness or evidence. Consequently, I am not
inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence,
the order.
ORDER
This application stands rejected.

Date : 09.06.2022.

( S.T. Tripathi)
Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.