(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.995/2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK AT
NASHIK
BAIL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2022
1 Pundlik Narayan Raut, age-50 yrs.
2 Mahesh Pundlik Raut, age-18 yrs.
Both r/o. Out of Harsul Baripada
Shivar, Tal.Tryambakeshwar,
Dist.Nashik.

]
]
]
]
] .. Applicants/accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
]
Through– P.I. Harsul Police Station, ]
(C.No.57/2022)
]..Respondent/prosecution
Advocate Shri.G.L.Bodke for the applicants/accused.
APP Smt.Aparna Patil for the State.
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
This is an application filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Processor Code in CR No.57/2022 for offence punishable under
Sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with
Harsul police station.
2.

The facts of the prosecution is that the complaint filed by
Mr.Haridas Gangaram Moule, age 51 yrs, Occu – Teacher that on
13.5.2022 at about 6 p.m. he went for the Haldi Program at the
house of Eknath Navsu Borse. When he was present in Bondar-mal
village some person known to him by name Pundlik Raut and other
two to three person demanded Rs.10,000/- from him. He refused to
pay the amount and stated, “at present he don’t have money; from
where he could pay”. He was assaulted by wooden stick on his leg,
hand, back and head. He was brought at Rural Hospital Harsul by
Pundlik Raut (applicant No.1 only) and admitted for medical
Page 1 of 3
(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.995/2022
treatment. Other two to three persons ran away from the spot. It is to
be noted that this person i.e. informant succumbed to injury on
15.5.2022 at 3.35 p.m. at Nashik Civil Hospital. Accordingly,
complaint under section Sections 302, 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal
Code is registered.
3.

The case of the applicant is that he is falsely implicated in
this case. Charge-sheet is filed therefore investigation is carry out. He
has denied any Haldi Program organized in Bondar-mala.
4.

I have heard Ld.Adv. Shri.G.L.Bodke. He pithily submitted
that accused no.1 only admitted to the injured who succumbed to
injury. There is difference about the place of the occurrence when
compared with the statement of Koushalya and the complaint.
Hence, prayed that released on bail.
5.

Whereas, Ld.APP Smt.Aparna Patil vehemently submitted
that the dispute arose on the ground of money. Statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Mr.Bodke PSI Harsul is present
who also objected to release on bail.
6.

Heard both side. Perused application and say filed by the
concern police official of Harsul Police Station.
7.

The Ld. Adv.Bodke placed reliance on (1) Akshay Suresh
Hadavale Vs. State of Maharashtra, LAWS (Bom) 2015-1-369, (2)
Pradeep Shivaji Shinare Vs. State of Maharashtra, LAWS (Bom)
2015-1-369, (3) Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, LAWS (SC)2005-1-100. With due respect all citations are not
applicable as facts are being different.

Page 2 of 3
(Order below Exh.1)
8.

B.A.No.995/2022
I have gone through the charge-sheet which reveals that
after lodging complaint on 14.5.2022 at 2.53 p.m. at Harsul P.S.
immediately on second day as per the Inquest Panchnama u/s. 174 of
Cr.P.C. shows that the injured succumbed to injury. The medical
certification of cause of death reveals death due to “Head Injury with
Polytrauma”. It also reveals the weapon has seized under
memorandum panchnama within the ambit of Section-27 of the
Indian Evidence Act from the accused. Record reveals that accused
no.1 Pundlik Narayan Raut was arrested in C.R.No.48/15 of Harsul
P.S. for offence punishable u/s. 395, 307, 353, 332, 333 etc.of the
IPC. Koushalya Pundlik Raut is eye-witness, who was also assaulted
by the accused. She has specifically made allegations against both
applicants and residents of Bari-pada by name Arun Ananda Bhoye
and Govind Kashinath Pardhi. This is not the time as to check the
corroboration of statement of the witnesses and the complaint,
otherwise it would be mini-trial at bail stage. Considering the brutal
murder at the instance of four accused of the person who was
teacher by profession and considering the apprehension by the
prosecution that the accused being residence of the same place may
tamper the prosecution evidence and pressurize the prosecution
witnesses; if accused released on bail certainly they will pressurize
the
eye-witnesses. Hence, I am of the considered opinion
that they are not entitled to release on bail. Hence, order ORDER
Bail Application below Exh.1 being devoid of merit
is rejected.
Digitally signed by
UMESHCHANDRA
UMESHCHANDRA JAIKUMAR MORE
JAIKUMAR MORE
Date: 2022.09.07
12:21:56 +0530
Nashik.
Date : 06.09.2022
(Dr. U.J. More)
Additional Sessions Judge
Nashik.
Page 3 of 3