..1..
MHNS010025892022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 659 OF 2022
Vikas Bhimrao Ujgare,
Age 29 yrs, Occ: Labour
R/o. Gautamnagar Garware,
Ambad, Nashik.

… Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Ambad Police Station,
(CR No. 210/2022)
… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.

The applicant is having apprehension that he may be
arrested in connection with crime No.210/2022 of Ambad Police station
for the offence punishable under Section 326, 324, 143, 147, 148 of
I.P.C. Hence, he is seeking directions for grant of bail in the event of he
arrest in the said crime in view of Section 438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 14/05/2022 at
about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m. the the accused Santosh and others including
in the present applicant, due the their previous dispute with informant
have assaulted him and his relatives with iron rods, swords with kick
and fist blows etc. They have also abused and threatened them. Hence,
the report.
3.

The applicant has filed application seeking anticipatory bail
..2..
on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the offence. Initially crime
was registered under Section 324 of the IPC but later on there is
addition of charge under Section 326 of IPC. In the FIR his name is not
mentioned as co­accused and nothing is to be recovered from him. He is
not at all involved in the alleged offence. So he has prayed that he be
released on anticipatory bail.
4.

The Investigation Officer has filed his say through APP vide
Exh.4 and has contested this application stating that the offence is
serious in nature. The applicant has major role to play in this offence.
The statement of the injured witnesses are yet to be recorded. After the
registration of crime, the applicant and other co­accused are
absconding. So if the applicant is released on bail he might abscond
again and pressurize the informant. The weapons used in the offence
are yet to be recovered and so for the aforestated grounds the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary for investigation. So it is
prayed that the application be rejected.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant. He argued that there is
delay in lodging the FIR and applicant is falsely implicated in the same.
The name of applicant does not appear in the FIR and his role is
nowhere stated in the same. The main accused in the crime are arrested
and they are also released on bail. So his custodial interrogation is not
essential. So he argued that applicant be released on bail. In support of
his argument he has relied on the case of Bharatbai V/s. State of
Maharashtra LAWS (BOM) 2020­7­198.
6.

Per contra, the Ld. APP Gorwadkar has argued that delay in
..3..
FIR cannot be considered at this stage. The other accused in this crime
are yet to be traced out. The weapon i.e. sword used in the offence is
yet to be seized. The investigation is at initial state. The statement of
witnesses is yet to be recorded and so if the applicant is released on bail
he might pressurize them. There is also likelihood that he might
abscond if he is released on bail. The offence charged is severe in nature
and for further investigation custodial interrogation of applicant is
essential. So it is argued that application be rejected.
7.

Considered the arguments. Gone through the case of
Bhartabai (cited supra). In the said case chargesheet was filed and after
considering the statement of witnesses recorded the Hon’ble High Court
has came to the conclusion that none of the witnesses has specifically
stated about the assault made by the applicant. So considering her role
attributed in the offence she was released on regular bail. Such are not
the facts in this case as charge­sheet is yet to be filed and investigation
is at threshold.
8.

The Advocate for applicant has argued that name of this
applicant is not stated in FIR nor his role is stated. So the same shows
that he is not involved in the offence, so he be released on bail.
Considered the submissions. However, it has come on record from the
say of I.O. that during custodial interrogation with other accused name
of the present applicant has come on record and there are direct
allegations against him which prima facie shows his involvement in the
offence. The other co­accused are also yet to be arrested. Moreover,
recovery of the weapon i.e. sword used in the offence is yet to be made.
The investigation is at threshold. So the considering the gravity of the
..4..
offence the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
9.

The investigation is at initial stage and admittedly since
lodging of the report this applicant is absconding and so investigation
could not be proceeded further. Hence, considering the fact the
investigation is at threshold and the custodial interrogation of applicant
is necessary. Hence, for the aforestated reason I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Date:­ 03/06/2022
Nashik.

(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.