..1..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.567/22
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11)
NASHIK
Criminal Bail Application No.567 of 2022
Rahul Gajanan Sonawane
Age 37 Yrs., Occ: Agri.
Both r/o.Lakhamapur,
Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik.
…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Dindori Police Station.
(Cr. No.149/2022)
…Opponent
ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION.
1.
The applicant/accused has filed this application for grant of
anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.149 of
2022 of Dindori Police Station for the offence punishable under sections
327, 323, 504 506 and 427 of I.P.C.
2.
The facts in brief of the case are as under:
On 01/05/2022 at about 10.30 p.m. when the informant
had been to Ganraj Hotel in his Vento Car alongwith his friend
Gorakhnath Shekhare, at that time applicant had been there and he
abused informant in filthy language and threatened him that he should
do illegal work with him or else he will see him. The applicant pushed
the informant and assaulted him by fist and blows. The other unknown
persons accompanied with the applicant also assaulted the informant
and they took Rs.50,000/ from the pocket of the informant. Hence, the
report.
3.
The applicant has sought anticipatory bail by this
..2..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.567/22
application on the ground that he is falsely involved in the offence as
initially he has lodged one report against the informant. The applicant
has not committed any offence and Section 327 of IPC is not attracted.
It is contended that only due to the grudge the informant has falsely
implicated the applicant in this offence. The informant himself is a
habitual offender, whereas there is no criminal antecedents of the
applicant. So it is prayed that if he is released on anticipatory bail, he
will cooperate in the investigation and will abide the conditions of bail
if any, imposed on him.
4.
The Ld. APP and I.O. have contested this application by
filing pursis and say vide Exh. 6 and 7. It is contended that the
investigation is at initial stage. The names of other two accused are yet
to be traced out and the amount of Rs.50,000/ is yet to be recover. So
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. So it is prayed that
application be rejected.
5.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Mahajan for applicant has argued that, the
offence registered under Section 327 of IPC is not made out and so on
this ground itself the applicant be released on bail. He also argued that
there is some delay in lodging the FIR and the same is not explained. So
the same shows that applicant is falsely implicated in this offence by
informant due to grudge. Also there is no compliance of Section 157 of
Cr.P.C. and on that ground also accused is entitle for bail. Hence, he
argued that accused be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his
argument he has relied on the case of Ahamad Nabi V/s. State of U.P.
Laws (All) 19851214.
6.
Per contra the Ld. APP argued that the names of two
unknown accused are yet to be traced out and recovery of amount is yet
to made. So custodial interrogation of present applicant is essential. The
contents in FIR shows involvement of the applicant in the offence. So
..3..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.567/22
she argued that application be rejected.
7.
Considered the rival submissions. The grounds on which
the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail are that offence under Section
327 of IPC is not made out and non compliance of Section 157 of
Cr.P.C. On this point gone through the case of Ahmad Nabi (cited
supra) by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant. In the said case
considering the material before it the Hon’ble High Court had held that
there was no mandatory compliance of Section 157 and 158 of Cr.P.C.
as the report was not sent to the Magistrate. Also considering the
discrepancy in the injuries it was held that the provision of Section 173
of Cr.P.C was not complied and so accused was released on bail filed
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Such are not the facts in the present case.
So, this case law is not helpful to applicant at this stage.
8.
The second contention of the applicant is that the offence
under Section 327 of IPC is not made out. On this point it is material to
note that in the FIR it is alleged that the applicant has assaulted the
informant and has threatened him to do illegal act alongwith him.
Whereas the amount of Rs.50,000/ was also snatched from informant.
Hence, at this stage the allegations in the FIR well founded. Also at the
appropriate stage it will be considered that whether the offence under
Section 327 of IPC is made or not. But prima facie at this stage
considering the allegations of assault coupled with threats to do illegal
act and snatching of amount, are sufficient to show involvement of the
applicant in the offence.
9.
The allegations in the FIR shows that the applicant was
accompanied with two other unknown person. So in order to trace out
the names of unknown accused and also for the recovery of amount the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The other ground
raised by the applicant regarding delay in the FIR if considered as it is
..4..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.567/22
then also it is not necessary to consider the same at this stage and only
on the said ground it cannot be concluded that applicant is falsely
involved in the offence. Moreover, though the present applicant has
lodged one report against the informant prior to this incident, only
because of the same it cannot be said that he is falsely implicated in this
crime, when prima facie the material on record shows the involvement
of the applicant in the crime. So considering the nature of the offence it
can be gathered that, prima facie at this stage presence of applicant is
necessary for interrogation. Hence, for the aforestated reasons I proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:12/05/2022
Nashik.
Digitally
signed by
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.05.13
16:55:23
+0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.