..1..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11)
NASHIK
Criminal Bail Application No.664 of 2022
Lalaji Hari Tople
Age 46 yrs., Occ: Labour
R/o. Umbarpada, Post Kathipada
Tal. Surgana, Dist. Nashik.

…Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Surgana Police Station.
(Cr. No.19/2022)
…Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1.
1.

The applicant is having apprehension that he may be
arrested in connection with crime No.19/2022 of Surgana Police station
for the offence punishable under Section 353, 332, 333, 427, 504 and
506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Hence, he is seeking directions for grant of bail in
the event of he arrest in the said crime in view of Section 438 of Code
of Criminal Procedure.
2.

The facts in brief of the case are as under:
On 09/05/2022 at about 9.30 p.m. when the informant
who is a Forest Officer was discharging his official duty in Umbarthan
Forest Area Kukadne bit 2, he saw that present applicant was illegally
transporting Khair timber in his tractor. So when the informant stopped
his tractor and tried to arrest him, at that time the applicant called
other co­accused on the spot and they all assaulted the informant and
his 3 colleagues with stones, batons etc. Thereafter the colleagues of the
..2..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
informant ran from the said place whereas the informant was severely
assaulted by them. Hence, as the present applicant and co­accused have
obstructed the informant and assaulted him while discharging his
official duty, so the report.
3.

The applicant by this application has contended that he is
falsely implicated in this offence and he has not committed any offence.
No incident as alleged in the report has taken place. The applicant was
just collecting damaged timber from the forest for purpose of cooking
food in his house. He was caught by informant and assaulted by him
and his colleagues. Whereas, other co­accused no. 2 to 4 had been there
to save him. Also when the villagers received information about the said
information they had gathered on the spot and has seen the informant
while assaulting the present applicant. Due to which he was
unconscious and badly injured. The villagers which was the mob of 40
person lost their control and pelted stones on informant and his
colleagues. His custodial interrogation is not necessary and he is ready
to co­operate the I.O. in investigation. He has no criminal antecedents.
So it is prayed that he be released on anticipatory bail.
4.

The APP and I.O. have contested this bail application by
filing pursis and say vide Exh.11 and 12.

It is contended that the
applicant is the main accused in the crime. He is yet to be arrested. His
custodial interrogation is essential for enquiring regarding the other co­
accused and also for detailed investigation. If the applicant is released
on bail there is likelihood that he might destroy the evidence and
pressurize the witnesses. So it is prayed that application be rejected.
5.

The informant Ramaji Kuvar who is the victim in this crime
..3..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
has appeared and filed his objection on this application vide Exh.9. It is
contended that he was brutally assaulted by the applicant and other co­
accused while discharging his official duty. He was assaulted by a mob
of near about 30 to 40 persons and was dragged at nearby village where
60 to 70 other persons have assaulted him and as he was rescued by the
government officer his life was saved. The applicant is politically and
economically influential person and this fact can be seen from the fact
that till today he is not arrested in this crime. So if he is released on bail
there is likelihood that he will pressurizing informant and witnesses.
The investigation is at initial stage and as the applicant is absconding
since lodging of the FIR he cannot be protected by allowing the present
application. Hence, it is submitted that the application be rejected.
6.

Heard Ld. Adv. A.K. Kale for the applicant. He argued that
the applicant was assaulted by the informant as he has refused to
illegally transport the wood of informant. So the applicant has lodged
the report against the informant and his colleagues. However, only to
help the informant who is the public servant his report was deliberately
taken belatedly by the police. He was severely injured in the said
incident and has taken treatment in private hospital. So he was not
arrested by the police and he is not absconding as alleged. There is
nothing on record from which it can be said that custodial interrogation
of applicant is necessary. So he be released on anticipatory bail. In
support of his argument he has relied on the case of Bhagirathsinh
Jadeja V/s. State of Gujarat LAWS (SC)­1983­11­16 and Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre V/s. State of Maharashtra and others LAWS
(SC)­2010­12­2.
7.

Per contra, Ld. APP Smt. Patil and Adv. Shingada for victim
..4..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
argued that the present applicant is the main accused in the crime and
he was illegally transporting Khair wood from forest. So when the
informant has obstructed him and tried to arrest him while discharging
his official duty he was assaulted by applicant, other co­accused as well
as by the mob of 30 to 40 person who had been there to help them. The
informant was assaulted brutally by them and dragged to the village
where 60 to 70 villagers have also assaulted him. Whereas his
colleagues had ran away from the spot in order to save their lives and
lateron have informed their officers who rescued the informant. So it is
argued that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in
order to seized the tractor and further investigation in the crime. So
considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that public servant
was brutally assaulted while discharging his official duty, the
application be rejected. Also in order to maintain law and order the
application be rejected.
8.

Considered the arguments. The Ld. Advocate for informant
in support of his contention that the victim has right to participate in
the proceeding has relied on the case of Jagjit Singh V/s. Ashish
Mishra AIR online 2022 SC 552. Gone through the case law wherein
the Hon’ble S.C. has held that a victim has a legally vested right to be
heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Moreover, in this
case permission is given to victim to that effect by order below Exh.8.
9.

Gone through the case of Bhagirathsinh (cited supra). In
the said case petition for regular bail was before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Whereas in the present case applicant is seeking anticipatory
bail. Gone through the case of Siddharam Mhetre (cited supra)in the
said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed in detail the provision of
..5..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and it is observed that which factors and
parameters must be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. So
in light of guidelines given in this case law it is essential to decide the
present application.
10.

In view of the rival contentions, it has come on record that
counter cases are filed in connection with the present crime. The
present crime is registered by the Forest Officer, whereas another crime
i.e. CR No. 54.2022 is registered by the present applicant against the
informant and his 3 colleagues. So the fact that can be gathered is that,
admittedly some incident has occurred between both the parties on the
relevant day and time. Also the presence of the present applicant on the
spot is not disputed due to the same.
11.

The present applicant has alleged that he was not
transporting Khair wood illegally as alleged. Per contra, the incident
took place as the informant has forced him to transport some woods in
his truck. But as he refused to do so, he was assaulted by the informant
and his colleagues. However, it is also admitted that a mob of 30 to 40
persons gathered on the spot and stones were pelted on the informant
and his colleagues. So, if their case is considered as it is, that applicant
was not transporting illegally Khair wood from forest, but from the
documents on record it can be seen that crime is registered against
applicant by the Forest officers for illegally transporting Khair wood
from forest. So at this prima facie stage, the case of applicants does not
appear to be believable, per contra the contentions in the FIR on this
point appears to be justified.
12.

As discussed above it has come on record that a mob of 30
..6..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
to 40 persons were gathered on the spot only to help the applicant.
Whereas, the report prima facie shows that the present applicant has
assaulted the informant as well as his colleagues and have pelted stones
on them. So due to the fear the colleagues of the informant who are
also injured ran away from the said spot in order to save their life.
Lateron, the motorcycle of the informant was damaged by them and he
was dragged towards the Ambarpada village and their also he was
assaulted. So it can be seen that prima facie there is direct material to
infer involvement of the present applicant in the offence.
13.

The applicant is also admitting the presence of mob of 30
to 40 persons on the spot, but admittedly FIR is only against the present
applicant and 3 co­accused. Moreover, it has come on record that the
informant was hospitalized and was taking treatment for nearabout 17
days.
14.

The applicant has contended that he was severely injured
and was taking treatment and he is not absconding as alleged. To
support his contentions he has filed on record his MLC. However, after
perusing the same prima facie it can be seen that he was admitted on
11/05/2022 and discharged on 15/05/2022. The I.O. has objected this
application on the ground that for further investigation and to trace out
the unknown accused, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is
necessary. As aforestated considering the gravity of the offence, and the
number of unknown accused which are yet to be traced out, I held that
custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential. Also for the seizure
of tractor in which it is alleged that the applicant was transporting
illegally Khair woods the custodial interrogation of applicant is
necessary.

..7..

15.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.664/2022
As aforestated considering the number of unknown accused
involved in this offence, the apprehension of prosecution is justified
that, if applicant is released on bail it will be difficult to trace out them.
So considering the same and the nature and gravity of the accusation
and the exact role played by the present applicant, his possibility to flee
from justice it will not be justified to allow the present application.
Whereas, in the present crime the custodial interrogation of the accused
is essential. So the request of the applicant cannot be considered.
Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Application for bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:­08/06/2022
Nashik.

Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.06.10
17:17:42 +0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.