1
Cri. Bail Appln. No.518 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.518 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010020352022
1.

Amol Dada Jadhav
Age : 30 years, Occ : Driver
R/o : Ramswaroop Building,
Flat No.7, Swarajya Nagar,
Pathardi Phata, New Nashik,
Nashik.

2.

Brijeshkumar Ram Khelawan
Age : 27 years, Occ : Driver
R/o : J.K. Transport, Shivpark
Colony, Behind Indoline Furniture
Company, Ambad, Nashik.
.. Applicants/Accused Persons.
V/S
State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Indira Nagar
Police Station, Nashik
(CR. No.I­52/2022)
.. Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. Amit S. Bhat for Applicants/Accused Persons.
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.

ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 29th April, 2021)
1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of regular bail in CR No.I­52/2022
registered with the respondent Indira Nagar Police Station for an
2
Cri. Bail Appln. No.518 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2.

Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that, the incident occurred
on 10.04.2022 at about 10.45 p.m. at the parking area of
Ramswaroop Building, Patherdi Phata, Nashik. It is the case of the
prosecution that, the complainant had been to his Aunt’s place. His
Aunt Savitri and her daughter Kishori were sleeping on the Terrace.
The applicants went over there and consumed liquor and smoked.
The Cousin Aditya @ Babloo asked the applicants and they started
abusing and threatened him. Thereafter they came down and beat
Aditya @ Babloo and when complainant went to rescue the said
Aditya @ Babloo. The accused persons assaulted in the stomach of
the complainant by a sharp knife. Complainant was taken to the
Hospital where he was treated and his statement was recorded by the
Police and thereafter the Crime was registered.
3.

It is the case of the applicants that, they are falsely
implicated in this case. In their medical examination, they were not
found to have been consumed the liquor. They are permanent
resident of the address given in the title clause and are working in
Ambad Industrial Area. There was a quarrel between the parties and
exchange of words. Recovery is made. Investigation is at the verge of
completion. Complainant is discharge from the Hospital. They are
ready to abide by the terms and conditions. Therefore, prayed to
allow the application.
4.

Respondent filed their say vide Exh.4 and objected for
grant of bail. It is their case that, the offence alleged is serious in
3
Cri. Bail Appln. No.518 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
nature. Complainant is still in the Hospital and is operated twice. The
applicants are residents of same area. Therefore, they may tamper
with the prosecution evidence. They may threatened and pressurize
the complainant and witnesses Therefore, prayed to reject the
application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicants and Ld. A.P.P. for
State. So also gone through the police­paper produced for inspection
by the Ld. A.P.P. So also gone through the authorities relied by Ld.
Advocate for the applicants vide list Exh.5.
6.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on
record, what can be gathered is that the applicant No.1 had assaulted
the complainant on his stomach by knife. Of­course the allegations
are refuted by the applicants. The knife is recovered from the
possession of the applicants. Perusal of police­papers reflect that, the
complainant is still admitted in the Hospital and he is undergoing
treatment. Investigation is in progress. Considering the seriousness of
the offence and the role attributed to these applicants, this Court
finds that, it will not be wise to invoke discretion in favour of the
applicants.
7.

As far as, the authorities relied by Ld. Advocate for the
applicants is concerned i.e.,
(i)
“Sharad s/o Ankush Pawar & Others v/s The State of
Maharashtra, decided on 14.05.2019, reported in 2019 CJ
(Bom) 1007 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
(Aurangabad
Bench)”.

(ii)
“Maruti s/o Ramling Chobe & Another v/s The State of
Maharashtra, decided on 07.06.2019, reported in 2019 CJ
4
(Bom) 1124
(Aurangabad
by the Hon’ble
Bench)”.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.518 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
Bombay
High
Court
(iii) “Suvigya Rajagopalan @ Subigya Rajagopalan v/s The State
of Karnataka, decided on 02.07.2018, reported in LAWS
(KAR)­2018­7­210 by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court”.
(iv)
“XXX v/s The State of Kerala, decided on 30.04.2021,
reported in LAWS (KER)­2021­4­57 by the Hon’ble Kerala
High Court”.

(v)
“Yash Pal v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on
15.12.2018, reported in LAWS (HPH)­2011­12­87 by the
Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court”.

8.

As far as the first authority is concerned, in this authority
the main accused were different and one of the accused was granted
anticipatory bail and the role of the applicant was similar. Therefore,
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted bail. Therefore this authority
can not be said to be applicable to our case.
9.

As far as the second authority is concerned, in this
authority the informant had sustained one sutured wound caused by
blunt and hard object and said injury was simple in nature. In our
case in hand, it is not so. Therefore, this authority is not applicable to
our case in hand.
10.

As far as the third authority is concerned, in this
authority the previous bail application was rejected at the Crime
stage and after investigation and Charge­sheet came to be filed, the
Hon’ble High Court granted bail. In our case in hand investigation is
in progress. Therefore, this authority is not applicable to our case in
hand.

5
11.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.518 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
As far as the fourth authority is concerned, in this
authority the applicant was the father of the victims, he was in
custody since long and he was undergoing acute depression.
Considering relations, Their Lordships granted bail. It is not our case.
Therefore, this authority is not applicable to our case in hand.
12.

As far as the last authority is concerned, in this authority
the petitioner was in Jail since more than 01 year 09 months and
during this period, he lost his wife and two children. Therefore, the
bail was granted. It is not our case. Therefore, this authority is not
applicable to our case in hand.
13.

In the result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.518/2022 stands
rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Place : Nashik.
Date : 29/04/2022
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Date: 2022.04.29
17:57:47 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.