Sunil Dadasaheb Saste v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1388 OF 2019 Sunil Dadasaheb Saste ...Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
• Mr. Sanjeev Kadam I/b Mr. Rupesh A. Zade, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr. Prashant Jadhav, Learned APP for the State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2019 P.C. :
1.
The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 36/19 registered at Baramati City Police Station under sections 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2.
The FIR is lodged by Shri Yogesh Agarwal, who is working as Legal Metrology Inspector. According to him, on 7th January 2019 the present applicant and one unknown person came to his office and misbehaved with him. The unknown person manhandled the first informant. The first informant had issued a notice in respect of calibration of weigh-bridge in Malegaon Co-operative Sugar Factory. On 7th January 2019, at around 4.34 p.m., the applicant 1/3
called him and expressed his desire to meet the informant. The applicant came to his office, at around 2.00 p.m., on 8th January 2019. The applicant spoke with him arrogantly and questioned about his action of issuing notice to the factory. While the informant tried to go away, the unknown person forced him to sit and manhandled him. The applicant introduced himself of as municipal counselor elected three times. The applicant acted in a manner which amounted to interference with the informant's duty at his office. Hence, the FIR is lodged.
3.
Heard, Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP for the State.
4.
Mr. Kadam submitted that it is a small incident and the applicant had not exceeded his limits. He submitted that applicant has already tendered an apology letter to the first informant and his custodial interrogation is not necessary. A copy of that letter is taken on record and marked as exhibit 'X' for identification. 5.
The learned APP submitted that the behaviour of the applicant was unacceptable.
6.
I have considered these submissions. Undoubtedly, the FIR 2/3
mentions the arrogant manner in which the applicant has behaved. The applicant had no business to question the legal duty performed by the first informant. However, the applicant has already tendered an apology letter to the first informant and his custodial interrogation will not yield anything further than what is mentioned in the FIR.
7.
In this background, I am inclined to grant protection to the applicant. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 36/19 registered at Baramati City Police Station, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The application stands disposed off accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 3/3