Mahesh @ Dinesh Anandrao Rathod v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2023 Mahesh @ Dinesh Anandrao Rathod APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Another RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. Amar Vinayakrao Lavte, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for respondent - State .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 18 th JANUARY, 2023 ORDER :

1.

The applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No. 342 of 2022 registered with Nanalpeth Police Station, District-Parbhani for offence punishable under section 364A, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

FIR is lodged by Sau. Laxmibai Kishan Chavan alleging that her son Ramesh was abducted by unknown persons on 23rd August, 2022. On 24th August, 2022, Ramesh asked his father to deposit an amount in his bank account. CCTV footage of the square, from where Ramesh was abducted, reveals that two

{2} persons had abducted Ramesh and one of them was accused Gappu Jadhav and other one was wearing sky blue colour shirt. Four persons were there in Indigo Car, who abducted Ramesh. On 25th August, 2022, again, Ramesh called his father and requested him to deposit Rs.4,50,000/- in his bank account, since the abductors threatened to kill him.

3.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the investigation papers. 4.

Investigation in the present crime is complete and charge sheet is filed on 19th November, 2022. The applicant is shown as accused No.5 in the charge sheet. The only material available against the applicant is that, in the supplementary statement of Ramesh, he has stated that the applicant had caught hold of him along with accused Amol Jadhav while he was being abducted. Except this, there is nothing on record to show involvement of the applicant in the present crime.

5.

The applicant claims to be a student and he has no criminal antecedents. The applicant was granted interim protection and was directed to attend the police station. The applicant has attended the police station and co-operated in the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.

{3} 6.

In view of these aspects, the applicant deserves protection. The application is, therefore, allowed, by confirming the interim order. The applicant shall not tamper prosecution evidence.

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE drp/aba31-23.doc