Laxman Ramkisan Thombre v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:13928 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2024 Laxman Ramkisan Thombre

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Amol G. Kale h/f Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope APP for Respondents: Mrs. P.V. Diggikar .....

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATED : 10th JULY, 2024.

PER COURT :- 1.

The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with crime No.150 of 2024 registered with Bhokardan Police Station, district Jalna, for the offence punishable under sections 327, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

It is the prosecution's case that the applicant is the Sarpanch of village Javkheda (Thombre). On 7.4.2024, the informant Vijay Thombre made a telephonic call to the applicant and asked him about non supply of water since last 15 days and to look into it. On that, the applicant abused the informant and threatened him that he will cut his hands and legs and asked the informant where he is. The informant told him that he is near the Government D.P. It is alleged that thereafter, after some time the applicant came to the place where

-2the informant was standing. Thereafter, the applicant called his nephew and brother and it is alleged that the applicant abused the informant and took 50 currency notes of 100 denomination from the pocket of the informant.

3.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged incident has not been happened. Due to the political rivalry the name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. No custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, he requested to allow the application.

4.

It is the contention of the learned APP that he has received the report from the investigating officer and in the report it is mentioned that there was no communication between the applicant and the informant as alleged in the F.I.R. Hence she requested to pass the appropriate order.

5.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R. and the report dated 08.07.2024 given by the Assistant Police Inspector, Bhokardan, police station. In the report, it is mentioned that as per the allegations in the F.I.R. the CDR of mobile of the applicant and informant is checked and as per the said CDR, there was no call

-3between the applicant and the informant on the relevant date and time. Considering this report, it appears that there was no involvement of the applicant in the said crime and I pass the following order:-

O R D E R

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) The interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 03.05.2024 stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions with following modification:- (a) the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) rlj/