Ganesh Ramesh Kavle (Kawde) v. The State Of Maharashtra

28-aba-1027-2022.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1027 OF 2022 GANESH RAMESH KAVLE (KAWDE)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Swapnil S. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Kagne ...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2022 PER COURT:- 1.

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

2.

The applicant is a builder and does the money lending business. The applicant has a case that he has lend money to the first informant, however, he did not repay. Hence, he went to demand the money to the house of the first informant. However, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. It has been falsely alleged against the applicant that he caused injury to the complainant with fighter. The injury is simple. The applicant has small children and nobody is there to look after them. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him.

3.

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application contending that the applicant is involved in the illegal money lending

28-aba-1027-2022.odt (2) business and he is charging the exorbitant rate of interest. On the day of incident, the applicant assaulted the complainant with fighter that caused serious injury to the complainant near his eye. That fighter is yet to be recovered. There are antecedents to the discredit of the applicant. Therefore, he has no case for anticipatory bail. 4.

Perused the papers, the FIR and other documents filed by the applicant. Specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant that he had been to the house of the complainant to demand the money lend by him. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount forthwith, the applicant assaulted him with iron fighter to his eye and he has sustained the injuries. The fighter is a deadly weapon that may cause a serious injury. The recovery of the fighter is essential to complete the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application stands dismissed. (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//