Deepak Gautam Pandey v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3463 OF 2022 Deepak Gautam Pandey ...Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Milan Desai for applicant.

Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for State.

Mr. Pushpak Ingale, PI, Samtanagar Police Station is present.

CORAM:

M. S. KARNIK, J DATED:

DECEMBER 19, 2022 PC:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State.

2.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No. 769 of 2021 registered with Samtanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 326, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506(ii), 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the 1/3

charge-sheet has been filed and the investigation is complete and therefore, there is no need to arrest the applicant. It is further submitted that the offence was not premeditated and happened at the spur of the moment. It is further submitted that there is a co-accused - Pradeep Mahendra Singh, who has been arraigned with the present applicant and he has been granted pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order dated 11/10/2022 passed by this Court in respect of co-accused, granting him pre-arrest bail. From the First Information Report, it is seen that a specific role has been alleged by the complainant that he was hit on his head and nose by the applicant with the bamboo stick. The complainant suffered serious injuries. The injured was admitted in the hospital for 6 days. Apart from the other injuries, the medical certificate records that the injured victim suffered "Fracture bilateral nasal bone and nasal septum. Fracture medial wall of right orbit noted. Ethmoid hemosinus noted". 4.

There are as many as 19 criminal cases which have been filed against applicant in various police stations. Thus, there are criminal antecedents against the applicant. In this view of the 2/3

matter, it is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

5.

The application is rejected.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 3/3