Ramesh Pandurang Kuntewad v. The State Of Maharashtra

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1296 OF 2024 Ramesh Pandurang Kuntewad ....Applicant

VERSUS

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

Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for Applicant.

Mrs. M. L. Sangeet, APP for the State.

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1321 OF 2024 Pappu @ Mashnaji Vitthal Chintamwad & another ..... Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents .....

Mr. U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate holding for Mr. S. N. Pawde, Advocate for Applicant.

Mrs. M. L. Sangeet, APP for the State.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2024.

PER COURT :

1.

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 0177/2024 registered with Mukhed Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149,

- 2 - 326, 324, 323, 506, 341, 384, 385, 386, 387, 120-B, 427 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2.

First informant made allegations that the accused persons named therein used to demand money from the father of the informant by way of extortion. He has referred to the incident occurred on 07.06.2024 in which he was assaulted by the accused persons with fists and kicks blows. There is allegation against coaccused that they caused assault on his head with wooden stick. 3.

Learned counsel for Applicants submit that neither names of the Applicants are mentioned in the First Information Report nor in the chrage-sheet any witness has stated about any overt act being committed by them. It is claimed that there is no criminal history against the Applicants.

4.

Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that there is transcript of video recording of the incident in which present Applicants can be seen.

- 3 - 5.

Undisputedly, in the First Information Report, names of the Applicants are not recorded and for the said reason, no over act is alleged against them. Even from the transcript of the video recording of the incident, it is not seen that the Applicants have caused any assault in the said incident on the informant. Applicants have no criminal history behind them. Investigation in the crime is already over. Hence, both the applications stand allowed in terms of the interim order.

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb