Kaluram Maruti Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1407 OF 2022 Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date:

2022.09.15 10:17:56 +0530 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Kaluram Maruti Pawar ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Pandit Kasar, for the Applicant.

Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Navnath B. Chapale, IO, MIDC, Bhosari Police Station - present.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C.

1.

Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.262 registered with Bhosari MIDC Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.

Complainant is lady Circle Ofocer, a public servant, discharging public duty under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. She has decided certain revenue cases by which the applicant was aggrieved and as such stopped her vehicle, removed its keys and

threatened her for passing adverse order.

3.

The contentions of the counsel for the applicant are, the applicant is an ex-councillor and responsible person. According to him, he was not present on the spot when the alleged incident had taken place. His further contentions are, in view of interim protection ordered, the applicant has co-operated in the investigation till date and that being so, his custodial interrogation is not required. His contentions are, the issue which was decided by the complainant has no connection with the present applicant and that being so, he is falsely implicated.

4.

Learned APP based on the investigation carried out till this date opposed the prayer.

5.

Apart from the statement of the complainant, a public servant, the statement of other eye-witnesses specifically attributed the role of active participation of the applicant in the commission of crime.

6.

The applicant who is former councillor, a social worker ought to have acted in more responsible and careful manner. There is enough material to infer prima-facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. That being so, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7.

The application as such fails, rejected.

8.

As prayed, ad-interim protection is extended by two weeks.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )