..1..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.529/22
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11)
NASHIK
Criminal Bail Application No.529 of 2022
Somnath Tukaram Bhagat
Age 29 yrs., Occ: Service and Agri.
R/o. Lonarwadi (Shashrinagar)
Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.
…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Sinnar Police Station.
(Cr. No.166/2022)
…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.126 of
2022 of Dindori Police Station for the offence punishable under sections
326, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 427 of I.P.C.
2.
The facts in brief of the case are as under:
The informant Sarthak Kokate has lodged report vide
CR.No.166/2022 of Sinnar Police station against the present applicant.
It is alleged that on 21/04/2022 at about 7.30 p.m. when he was
travelling in his Hyundai Car and proceeding towards his house and had
been in front of Ganesh Temple, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Nagar, at
that time the applicant had been on his motorcycle and suddenly
stopped his car and asked him as to why he gave dash (dV) to his
motorcycle. So when the informant alighted from his car and told him
that he has not dashed his motorcycle, but hearing this applicant got
..2..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.529/22
angry, he abused him, assaulted him with slaps and by iron ring on his
left eye, ear, head, chest and stomach. He also snatched his iphone and
damaged it by throwing the same on the floor. So the informant due to
fear ran from the said place by keeping his car there. While he was
running applicant threatened him. Hence, he lodged the report against
the present applicant.
3.
The applicant has filed this bail application on the ground
that he is not involved in the offence. The delay caused in lodging the
FIR itself shows that he is falsely implicated in the same. Only due to
suspicion and on say of informant false crime is registered against him.
He works in Tahasil Office Sinnar. So if he is arrested it will effect his
job and he will also be defamed in the society. Hence, he has sought for
grant of anticipatory bail.
4.
The Ld. APP and the I.O. have filed their reply vide Exh.6
and 7 and opposed the application. It is contended that investigation is
at initial stage and the weapon as well as motorcycle used in the offence
is yet to be recovered from the applicant. Also the motive of the crime is
not yet come on record. So the custodial interrogation of applicant is
essential. So it is prayed that application be rejected.
5.
Heard argument advanced by Ld. Adv. Mr.Golesar for the
applicant and Ld. APP. Mrs. Patil for the respondent/State.
6.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Golesar for applicant has argued that,
applicant is working in Tahasil Office, Sinnar. He is falsely implicated
in this offence only because he was present with the Tahasildar at the
time of enquiry conducted by the Tahasildar in connection with the
illegal sand transaction by the father of applicant. He has not committed
any crime as alleged and the delay in lodging the FIR itself is sufficient
to show that he is falsely involved in the same. He is ready to cooperate
the I.O. in investigation and he is also ready to abide the conditions
..3..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.529/22
imposed upon him by the court. So he argued that applicant be released
on bail.
7.
Per contra the Ld. APP Smt. Patil argued that, the applicant
has only on account of minor reason assaulted the informant.
The
informant has sustained grievous injuries due to the assault by the
applicant and so out of fear and due to the threat given by the applicant
he has not lodged FIR immediately. So there is delay in the FIR but
considering the reason and the age of the informant the same is no at
all fatal at this stage. Also the weapon used in the offence and the
vehicle is yet to be seized from the applicant. So the custodial
interrogation of applicant is essential. Moreover since the lodging of FIR
the applicant is absconding and so if he is released on bail there is
likelihood that he might abscond again and pressurize/threatened the
informant. So she argued that the application be rejected.
8.
In views of submissions of both the Ld. Advocates and the
documents on record it can be gathered that there is some delay in
lodging the FIR. As per the FIR which is registered by C.R. No.
166/2022 the present applicant only on minor count has stopped the
car in which the informant was travelling and has assaulted him by iron
ring. The applicant has also abused and damaged the I phone of the
informant. The FIR was initially lodged under Section 323, 324, 504,
506 and 427 of I.P.C. However, after receipt of the medical certificate
Section of 326 is added.
9.
The Advocate for applicant argued that the father of
informant was dealing with illegal transportation of sand and so inquiry
of the same was carried out by Tahasildar Sinnar. At the time of inquiry
the applicant being employee of the said office was present, but due to
the said grudge he is falsely implicated in this offence. However, it is
pertinent to note that, the contents of the application are silent on this
..4..
Cri. Bail Appln. No.529/22
point. Moreover, at this stage without any evidence, it is difficult to
believe the defence raised by the applicant and it cannot be said that he
is falsely implicated by informant. There is delay in lodging the report,
but considering the explanation put forth by the informant in the
report, the same appears to be probable at this stage.
10.
The investigation in the present case is at threshold.
Moreover as per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant has assaulted
the informant with iron ring and thereby caused grievous injuries on his
eye, ear, chest etc. The said iron ring i.e. the weapon allegedly used in
the offence and motorcycle is yet to be seized. So for the recovery of the
same the custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary and so arrest
is essential and required. So to achieved the said object i.e. for the
purpose of recovery the custodial interrogation of applicant is essential.
So considering the gravity of the offence and for the aforestated reasons
I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Application for bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:02/05/2022
Nashik.
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.05.02
17:53:44
+0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.