1
Cri. Bail Application No. 902 of 2022
ORDER BELOW EX. 01 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION
NO. 902 OF 2022
{Bhushan Bala Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra through Nashik
road Police Station}
This is the second bail application under section 438 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in
crime no. 84 of 2022 registered with Nashik road Police Station
under sections 326, 504 and 506 of the I. P. C.
02]
The applicant contended that false and fabricated case is
registered against him. He is permanent resident of the address
mentioned in the application. He is innocent and having deep roots in
the society. There is previous enmity between applicant and the
accused. The injured is discharged from the hospital. Nothing
remained to be recovered from him. The injured witness Shubham
Suryavanshi has filed affidavit on record mentioning the present
applicant has not assaulted him or other injured. He is ready to abide
by any conditions imposed by the court. Hence, he has prayed for
grant of anticipatory bail.
03]
APP filed say at Ex. 05 and I. O. filed say at Ex. 06. They
have stated that the offence is of serious nature. The present accused
is the main accused in the crime. He by means of cutter caused injury
on the right shoulder of injured witness. The weapon is yet to be
recovered. Four different crimes are pending against the accused.
Hence, they have prayed for rejection of bail.
04]
Heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned
APP. They have argued as per their stand taken as above. The counsel
of the applicant has stated that the complainant has filed affidavit to
release accused on bail as he has not committed the offence. This is
the change in circumstance to file second bail application. The
learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following case
2
laws:
a]
Syed Athar Ali S/o. Syed Khadar Ali (Name referred in FIR as
Syed Zuber Ali Syed Kadar Ali) and another vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 509 of 2022,
decided on 05.07.2022.

b]
Murali vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police in Criminal
Appeal No. 24 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) 10813 of
2019), decided on 05.01.2021.

c]
Ram Pujan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in LAWS(SC)-19737-2/CRLR(SC)-1973-0-52
05]
I have gone through the application, say, arguments, cited
case laws and police papers. There is prima-facie case against the
accused. He by means of cutter caused grievous injury on the shoulder
of the injured witness. He also used koyata and assaulted on one Rakesh
Bhalerao on his hip and forehead and also on his palms. Grievous
injuries were caused to the witnesses. The accused has criminal
antecedent. The weapon is yet to be recovered from him. The offence is
of serious nature. His custodial interrogation is required. Filing of
affidavit by the complainant or the witness stating that the accused has
not committed the offence is not substantial change in circumstance to
file second bail application. The earlier bail application was rejected on
merits. Considering all the grounds of the accused. Hence, the above
cited case laws filed by the applicant are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The other injured has not supported the bail
application of the accused. Also, the no objection affidavit of the one of
the injured cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding
the bail application. Only the case of the prosecution can be taken into
consideration. Hence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order:
Cri. Bail Application No. 905 of 2022
3
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Digitally signed
by RATHI
ROOPESH
RATHI
RAMSWARUP
ROOPESH
RAMSWARUP Date:
2022.07.25
18:45:39 +0530
Date : 25.07.2022
(R. R. Rathi)
Additional Sessions Judge-6,
Nashik.