..1..
MHNS010026342022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2022
Jagannath Tukaram Darade
Age 71 Yrs., Occ: Agri.
R/o. Mauje Nalwadi,
Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.

… Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Sinnar Police Station,
Sinnar Dist. Nashik.

… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.

The applicant is having apprehension that he may be
arrested in connection with crime No.110/2022 of Wavi Police station
for the offence punishable under Section 353, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.
Hence, he is seeking directions for grant of bail in the event of his arrest
in the said crime in view of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 23/05/2022 at
about 10.30 a.m. when the informant who is Assistant Engineer in
M.S.E.B. was discharging his duty in his office the present applicant and
his son had been there and told him that they had been there to give
complaint application against him. But when the informant told him
that they should file the said application in his higher office, the
applicant and his son abused him in filthy language and threatened to
kill him. So the informant told him that he is going to lodge report
against them and when he was about to leave his office to go to the
..2..
police station, the applicant and his son obstructed him and scuffled
with him. Hence, as the present applicant and his son obstructed the
informant while discharging his official duty. Hence, the report.
3.

The applicant has filed application seeking anticipatory bail
on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the offence. He has given
application to obtain electricity connection in his land G.No. 225 in the
year 2016, but since then connection was not given to him by the
informant. So he had lodged complaint against the informant and due
to the same he is falsely implicated in this offence. He is age old person
and is suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer. He has
not committed any offence. So he has prayed that he be released on
anticipatory bail.
4.

The Ld. APP. has filed pursis vide Exh.6 and the
Investigation Officer has filed his say vide Exh.7 and has contested this
application stating that the offence is serious in nature. There is
sufficient evidence to show direct involvement of the applicant in the
offence. Since the offence the applicant is absconding and so if he is
released on bail there is likelihood that he will again abscond. The
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for investigation.
So it is prayed that the application be rejected.
5.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mrs. Sangale for applicant. She argued that
applicant is a age old person and is suffering from several ailments. He
is falsely involved in the crime only because he has given complaint
against the informant. There are no allegations of assault or use of
criminal force against the applicant and so offence itself is not made
..3..
out. The other­co accused in this offence is already released on bail. So
it is argued that considering the aforestated grounds he be released on
bail.
6.

The Ld. APP on the other hand argued that since lodging of
the report this applicant is absconding and so investigation could not be
proceeded further. The offence is serious in nature as a public servant
was assaulted while he was discharging his official duty. So considering
the nature of the offence it is argued that the application be rejected.
7.

Considered the arguments. Gone through the FIR. The FIR
is lodged by the informant who is the Assistant Engineer in M.S.E.B.
Nandur Shingote. From the FIR it can be seen that prior to the present
incident, when the informant and other villagers were doing the work
of pipeline from the land of the present applicant he has obstructed
them and due to which the said work of pipeline could not be
proceeded. Lateron, on the relevant day when the informant was
discharging his official duties in his office, the present applicant had
been there with his son and has threatened the informant to kill. So
when the informant was proceeding to police station to lodge the report
they abused him and have scuffled with him. The informant was
rescued by his colleagues.
8.

The applicant has contended that he is falsely implicated in
this crime as he has filed complaint against the present informant as he
has not provided electricity connection to them. The documents filed
alongwith this application shows that one complaint application is filed
on the same day by the present applicant, but the said is in respect of
..4..
the work of pipeline connection which was proposed from the land of
applicant by the concerned office and the Grampanchayat office of the
village. So only because of this complaint application, at this stage it
cannot be concluded and said that the present crime is falsely registered
against the applicant. Per contra, as aforestated from the FIR it can be
seen that there are direct allegations against the present applicant and
his son.
9.

The applicant has contended that his son who is co­accused
is already released on bail so on the medical grounds he be also
released on bail. The record shows that admittedly the son of applicant
who is co­accused was arrested in this crime and lateron he is released
on bail. Admittedly, he is not released on anticipatory bail, so only on
the ground that he is released on regular bail, this application cannot be
allowed. Whereas, it is essential to see that whether custodial
interrogation of applicant is necessary.
10.

As aforestated at this stage there are direct allegations
against the applicant which shows his involvement in the offence. There
is prima facie sufficient material on record to say that the present
applicant has scuffled with the informant and thereby obstructed him
while discharging his official duty. The informant is the public servant
who on the relevant day was discharging his official duty. The
investigation is at initial stage and admittedly since lodging of the
report this applicant is absconding and so investigation could not be
proceeded further. Hence, considering the fact the investigation is at
threshold and the custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary, only
on the ground of his alleged ailments, this application cannot be
..5..
considered. Hence, for the aforestated reason I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:­ 02/06/2022
Nashik.

Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.06.02
17:29:05
+0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.