..1..
(Anticipatory Bail Order)
CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. 663 OF 2022
MHNS010025892022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 663 OF 2022
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Laxman Sakhahari Warule,
Age 67 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Narayan Raghunath Warule,
Age 40 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Kisan Sopan Warule
Age 34 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Santosh Laxman Warule
Age 31 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Shivaji Sampat Warule,
Age 41 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Sopan Dada Warule,
Age 70 yrs, Occ: Agri
Sampat Rambhaji Warule,
Age 71 yrs, Occ: Agri.
All r/o. Pangari (Bk),
Sinnar, Tal. Sinnar,
Dist. Nashik.
… Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Wavi Police Station,
Tal Sinnar Dist. Nashik.
(CR No. 52/2022)
… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.
The applicants are having apprehension that they may be
arrested in connection with crime No.52/2022 of Wavi Police station for
the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 324,
323, 326, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Hence, they are seeking directions for
grant of bail in the event of their arrest in the said crime in view of
Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anticipatory Bail Order)
2.
..2..
CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. 663 OF 2022
The case of the prosecution is that, on 03/03/3022 at
about 15.30 hrs. when the measurement of land G.No. 208 situated at
village Pangri was conducted at that time the alleged incident took
place wherein the present applicants abused, threatened and assaulted
the informant and his family members with sticks. Hence, the report.
3.
The applicants have filed application seeking anticipatory
bail on the ground that they are falsely implicated in the offence. The
informant and his family members on the relevant day at the time of
measurement of the land G.No. 208 have assaulted the present
applicants and they have not committed any offence as alleged. The
applicants are related to each other and from the same village. The
alleged incident has occurred at the time of measurement of the land
and as they were assaulted by the informant, they have registered crime
against them but only to give counter blast to their report this crime is
registered falsely against them. The injured informant is discharged
from the hospital prior to 80 days and Section 326 of IPC is not at all
attracted. They are falsely implicated in this offence. So they be
released on bail. They are ready to abide the conditions of bail if any
imposed on them.
4.
The APP and Investigation Officer have filed their say on
this application vide Exh.6 and Exh.7 and has contested this application
stating that the offence is serious in nature. There direct allegations
against the applicant which shows their involvement in the offence. The
investigation is at initial stage and so custodial interrogation of
applicant is essential. Hence, it is prayed that the application be
rejected.
(Anticipatory Bail Order)
5.
..3..
CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. 663 OF 2022
The injured informant has appeared in this petition and has
objected the same by filing several documents alongwith list Exh.11.
6.
Heard Ld. Adv. Shri.Jadhav for applicants. He argued that
the applicants are falsely implicated in the crime. On relevant date
measurement was called out of the land Gat No.208 and during the
same some quarrel took place wherein the present informant has
assaulted the applicants. Whereas during the said commotion the
informant felled down and has sustained injures. The applicants have
not assaulted him. Moreover, Section 326 of IPC is primafacie not
attracted as no dangerous weapons is allegedly used in this offence. The
role allegedly played by the applicants in the crime is assaulting by fist
and kick blows. So, considering their alleged role in the crime, their
custodial interrogation is not at all necessary. So, it is argued that
applicants be released on anticipatory bail.
7.
Per contra, the Ld. APP Smt. Patil and Smt.Sinkar argued
that the crime registered against the applicants is serious in nature. The
applicants have assaulted the informant resulting into grievous injury.
The custodial interrogation of applicants is necessary. So, it is argued
that application be rejected.
8.
Considered the arguments. It has admittedly come on
record that two counter case are lodged in respect of the incident dated
3.3.2022. The present crime is lodged by Shantaram Pawar against the
present applicants and other two coaccused. Whereas, C.R.No.53/2022
is lodged by present applicant no.1 against the present informant. So, in
view of said fact it can be gathered that admittedly some incident has
..4..
(Anticipatory Bail Order)
CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. 663 OF 2022
occurred on the relevant day. Moreover, presence of the present
applicants on the spot at the time of alleged incident is also admitted.
From the bare perusal of FIR it can be seen that direct allegations are
levelled against the present applicants for assaulting the informant by
sticks and kick and fist blows. Primafacie at this stage the material on
record shows involvement of the present applicant in the offence.
9.
The Ld. Adv. for applicants has argued that considering the
role allegedly played by the applicants they be released on bail. In
support of his argument he has relied on the case of Hanmant
Dyavappa
Pujari
Vs.
State
of
Karnataka
in
Cri.Petition
No.11350/2012 dated 19.10.2012. In the said case considering the
facts and circumstances before it, the Hon’ble High Court has held that,
there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were
guilty of offence punishable u/s.326 of IPC. So, their anticipatory bail
was allowed. In the present case in the FIR there are direct allegations
against all applicants. The medical certificate is on record shows that
informant has sustained several grievous injuries. Moreover, the
applicants are charged u/s. 143, 147, 148 and 149 etc. of IPC. So,
considering the same at this initial stage it will be difficult to bifurcate
role of each accused when they are charged for committing the offence
with common object by forming unlawful assembly.
10.
The investigation is at initial stage and admittedly since
lodging of the report i.e. from 5.3.2022 these applicants are absconding
and so investigation could not be proceeded further. Hence, considering
the fact that the investigation is at threshold and the custodial
interrogation of applicants is necessary, it will not be justified to release
..5..
(Anticipatory Bail Order)
CRI. BAIL APPLN. NO. 663 OF 2022
them on anticipatory bail. Hence, for the aforestated reason I proceed to
pass the following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date: 04/06/2022
Nashik.
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.06.08
12:39:04
+0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.