CNR No. MHNS010036132022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 891/2022.
( Harichandra Kashinath Bhandari Vs. State )
This application is moved by the applicant­accused
Harichandra Kashinath Bhandari under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in
connection with CR No.9/2022 registered with Igatpuri Police
Station, Dist. Nashik for the offence U/s. 302,307,452,427,143,
147, 148, 323, 504, 506 r.w.s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, under
section 4/25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(3) r.w.s.135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
2.

It is stated in the application that, the names of the
applicant­accused is falsely involved in the crime as he is residents
of village Nandgaon Sado. He has not committed any offence. After
investigating the matter the police found that the person whose
names are mentioned by complainant in FIR are falsely involved
and B­summary report against them in the court. So this aspect
also shows that the FIR filed by the complainant is doubtful and in
this offence the investigation is completed and the charge­sheet is
filed in the court bearing RCC No.56/2022 and therefore, no
purpose will be served by keeping applicant­accused behind the
bar. He is local resident and ready to abide all conditions laid down
by this Court, these and other grounds set out in the application,
prayed to allow the application.
3.

Application is opposed by the State by filing report vide
Exh.5.
4.

Perused the record. Heard, both the parties.

5.

The learned counsel for applicants­accused Shri.

Deshmukh has submitted that the applicant­accused has not
..2..

committed any offence.

So far as report filed by the police is
concerned, no specific reason is pointed out for rejecting the bail
application. Therefore, considering this fact, the applicant­accused
may be enlarge on bail on terms and condition laid down by this
court.
6.

On the other hand, learned APP Shri. Suryawanshi has
submitted that the said incident had occurred on day time, 30 to 40
persons have collectively assaulted the son of first informant and
his friends and in the said incident one Rahul Ramesh Salve was
murdered and the son of first informant sustained serious injuries.
There is sufficient evidence against the applicant­accused to
connect with the present crime. Therefore, prayed to reject the
application.
7.

I.O. is present with case papers.

8.

On perusal of the charge­sheet, it appears that the
applicant­accused is involved in the present crime. His role is
specifically made out in the charge­sheet. There is previous enmity
between both the parties and earlier two persons were murdered in
connection between these enmity. Therefore, no case for grant of
bail is made out by the applicant­accused. So far as granting bail to
the other accused is concerned, that cannot be considered as a
ground for parity in the present case in hand as the roles of those
accused persons are altogether different. In this case the present
applicant­accused has played vital role and committed murder of
deceased Rahul Salve. The eye witnesses naming the present
applicant­accused. Therefore, there is prima­faice case against the
applicant­accused. Hence, following order is passed.

Cri. Bail Application No.891/2022.
..3..

ORDER
1.
2.

Anticipatory Bail application No.891/2022 is hereby
rejected.
Inform to concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
MADHAV
A
Date­ 26.07.2022
Digitally signed
by SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date: 2022.07.26
18:33:45 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.