Sagar Amarnath Devkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:18827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 948 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1291 OF 2025 SAGAR AMARNATH DEVKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Rakshanda R. Jaiswal i/b. Mr. Ramankumar Dodiya APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. D. Batule Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Phadnis Pranav Prashant ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 18.07.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2] The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested on 16.06.2024 in connection with Crime No.62/2022, dated 08.03.2022, registered with Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 364, 354, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC & under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.
3] The learned Senior Advocate points out order passed by this court, wherein this court has recorded
settlement between the parties and the matter arises primarily out of matrimonial proceedings and various other matters are initiated by the parties against each other. In terms of the settlement arrived between the parties the proceedings are stated to be withdrawn against one another and it is further stated that Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the applicant to the informant. The settlement includes withdrawal of all the cases.
4] The learned APP objects for grant of bail.
However on perusal of the FIR the case for keeping the applicant in custody for one and half year is unwarranted. There is matrimonial dispute between the parties and the allegations is of assault and taking Rs.15,000/- and mobile phone for which the applicant is in jail for one and half year. The objection cannot be taken seriously.
5] The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that in view of the settlement the applicant has no objection for the bail.
6] Perused the FIR and the allegations made therein. The same also arises from the matrimonial proceedings, although, an offence under Section 395 is alleged. It is a matrimonial dispute and allegation is made that on a particular date Rs.15,000/- is taken and assault
being made on the informant and the applicant is in jail for about one and half year. Considering the same bail is granted to the applicant.
7] In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :
a] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.62/2022, dated 08.03.2022, registered with Waluj Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 364, 354, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC & under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
b] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.
d] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
e] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change.
8] Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.
9] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
10] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe