Rajendra Bhausaheb Barde v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:23235 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1184 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2860 OF 2025 IN ABA/1184/2025 Rajendra Bhausaheb Barde ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ......

Ms. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate for Applicant in ABA/1184/2025 Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent - State.

Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicant (Assist to APP) in APPLN/2860/2025 ......

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

RESERVED ON : 25 AUGUST 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26 AUGUST 2025 ORDER :

1.

This is a pre-arrest bail application on account of crime No.0377 of 2025 registered at Rahuri Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for offences punishable under sections 109, 119(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2.

Criminal Application No.2860 of 2025 is at the instance of the original informant, seeking leave to assist learned APP in prosecuting the Anticipatory Bail Application. For the reasons mentioned in the

-2application, the applicant-informant is permitted to assist the learned APP. Criminal Application No.2860 of 2025 is accordingly disposed off. 3.

Learned counsel for applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application submits that, as alleged occurrence is of 26.03.2025, whereas report is lodged against 10 to 11 persons on 29.03.2025. That, consequently there is delayed FIR. According to learned counsel, no specific role is assigned or attributed and all allegations are general in nature. That, there is also CCTV footage, which clearly shows that present applicant merely intervened to prevent occurrence, however, he is also involved. Considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is also not necessary, moreover when applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

4.

While opposing the above application, both, learned APP as well as learned counsel representing the original informant pointed out that, specific role has been attributed. That, grievous injuries are suffered by informant. Learned counsel pointed out that, applicant is habitual offender. That, there is use of deadly weapon. Learned APP and learned counsel for complainant also invited attention of this court to the injury certificate as well as photographs.

-35.

Perused the FIR dated 30.03.2025. Informant Satyajit Kadam reported Rahuri Police that, on 26.03.2025, around 9:20 p.m., while he and his associate namely Mangesh Mukund Dhus were proceeding in a vehicle bearing No. MH-17-CF-7000 and when they had reached Vishwakarma Chowk at Deolali Village, they allegedly saw some youth and ladies quarreling with boys. Informant claims that, in the capacity of ex-corporator, he tried to intervene by alighting from vehicle. However, it is alleged that, said episode seemed to be pre-planned and the persons, who were armed with deadly weapon including iron rod, assaulted him, causing bleeding injury. There are allegations of forcibly taking gold chain. He has named one Mayur Vijay Pawar, Aditya Barde, Khandya Ethape, Kalya @ Rajendra Bhausaheb Barde (present applicant), Rahul Mali, Savita Pawar and 4 to 5 men and 5 to 6 women for above act. Seeing other arrived, it is alleged these persons fled. 6.

FIR itself shows that, above statement is given while undergoing treatment in Maccare Hospital, Ahilyanagar. Therefore, though there is delay, it seems to be for above reasons. Both, learned APP and learned counsel for original informant has placed on record injury certificate showing head injury with traumatic optic neuropathy and blunt trauma with left eye which is said to be grievous.

-47.

Taking such medical papers into consideration, this court does not find it a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail as prayed. Hence, the following order is passed :-

ORDER

The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale