← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/949/2016anticipatory bail granted

Harshal Rajgopal Zavar (Jhamvar) v. The State Of Maharashtra

2016-06-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Badar2 pages

9 ABA 949 OF 2016.doc vks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.949 OF 2016 Harshal R Zavar .... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. V.V. Purwant, for the Applicant.

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. Pravin B. Randive, PSI Jodbhavi Peth Police Station, Solapur. CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.

DATE : 14th JUNE, 2016.

P.C. :

1.

The applicant/accused in Crime No186 of 2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 504, 506 of IPC , registered with police Station, Jodbhavi Peth, Solapur, by this application is praying for pre-arrest bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP.

3.

In normal course, I would not have exercised my discretion for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant, but in the instant case F.I.R. itself reflects that the applicant took out material from the shop owned by the husband of the informant, had returned the goods at 11.00 p.m. on the day of incident.

1/2

9 ABA 949 OF 2016.doc 2.

The learned counsel for the applicant fairly states that glass worth Rs.400/- is yet to be recovered. It is alleged that the owner of that shop had taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the applicant and the informant, who is wife of the owner of the shop, told the applicant that goods belongs to him. Under this impression, it is argued that the goods were taken but subsequently those are returned. 3.

In this view of the matter, liberty of the applicant needs to be protected and therefore order.

Order.

I) The application is allowed.

ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in above crime, he be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount. ii) As a condition of this order, the applicant should attend concerned police station as and when reasonably called for the purpose of investigation.

iv) The applicant should not extend any threat, promise, inducement to the persons acquainted with the facts of case so as dissuade them from disclosing them either to the Court or to the police.

v) The applicant should not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

[A. M. BADAR, J.] 2/2