CNR No.
MHNS010023172022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.574 /2022
( Prakash Bharat Kumavat Vs. State )
This is an application, for bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C.
in C.R. 81 of 2022 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik
u/s. 392 of The Indian Penal Code(IPC).
2.
The learned counsel Mr.S.R.Inamdar for the applicant
submits that, applicant is innocent person and has been falsely
implicated. He further submits that lower court has rejected bail
application of applicant on the ground that, he is habitual
offender . He has got fixed and permanent place of residence and
undertakes to cooperate investigation. The offence was registered
on 20.04.2022 and he has been arrested on 04.05.2022 and now
he is in judicial custody.
3.
Learned A.P.P. Mr. R.M. Baghdane, by filing pursis
(Exh.5) adopted say (Exh.4) filed by Investigation officer (I.O.) and
strongly objected this application. I.O. present alongwith police
papers.
4.
Prosecution case is that, on 20.04.2022 applicant has
snatched Mangalsutra of informant at Adharva Mangal Karyalaya,
near Gayatri Darshan Bunglow, Gangapur road, Nashik and
muddemal was recovered at his instance.
5.
that,
Ld. APP has opposed this application on the grounds
investigation is incomplete, muddemal property has been
recovered from applicant,he has criminal antecedents,he is
absconding in this C.R.,as he is resident of Chalisgaon,he may
hamper or tamper prosecution witnesses and evidence. There is
every likelihood of such types of offences may be committed by
accused in future.
6.
Perused record and police papers. Offence is serious in
nature. There is direct involvement of applicant. One gold ingot of
..2..
60 Grams has been recovered at the instance of applicant. He has
got previous criminal antecedents as various cases are pending
against him in different police station. The applicant may hamper
or tamer prosecution witnesses or evidence, may abscond and may
not be readily available for trial. There is also every likely hood that,
he may repeat similar offence. To buttress his submission that, bail
cannot be rejected only because various cases are pending against
applicant,
Mr. Inamdar relies upon, “Maulana Mahamad
Amir
Rashidi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.
159 of 2012 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.10244 of 2010 S.C. dated
16.01.2012”. In the reported case,FIR was registered u/s. 302 and 307
of I.P.C., against accused a member of Parliament. Other cases were also
against him, out which some ended in acquittal or, pending trial. Trial
commenced and two witnesses were examined wherein, he was in jail
for about one year, which are not there in the present case.
Thus,
factual backgrounds in the above reported case are entirely different.
Hence, this authority is not at all helpful to applicant. A bove grounds
are not just and satisfactory to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour
of the applicant. Hence, the order.
ORDER
This application stands rejected.
Date:17.05.2022.
( S. T. Tripathi )
Additional Sessions Judge7,
Nashik.