Amol Prakashrao More v. Nilesh Lalchand More And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:24444 954-ACB-62-2024+.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 62 OF 2024 Amol Prakashrao More

VERSUS

Lalchand Gyanuji More And Another WITH APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 63 OF 2024 Amol Prakashrao More

VERSUS

Nilesh Lalchand More And Another *** • Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant • Ms. M. L. Sangit, APP for the Respondent/State • Mr. S. G. Shinde h/f Mr. A. K. Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 *** CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2024 COMMON ORDER :

1.

These applications are for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the contesting Respondent in connection with Crime No. 89/2024 registered with Cantonment (Chhavani) Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant had Umesh

954-ACB-62-2024+.odt strenuously argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in not taking into consideration the injury certificate which was placed on record before it while granting anticipatory bail. 3.

This submission is opposed by the learned Counsel for contesting Respondent on the ground that it is recorded in the order that plank that allegedly used for causing assaulted is already seized, as such, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.

4.

For purpose of grant of bail, nature of offence and need of custodial interrogation of accused are factors relevant for consideration. From order impugned, it is clear that this was not case of custodial interrogation as recovery of weapon was already done. Hence, no error is committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in granting pre-arrest bail. Now, undisputedly charge-sheet is filed. Hence, this Court finds no reason for cancellation of bail. In the result, applications stand disposed of.

(R.M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh