Siddheshwar Sanjay Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:17650 {1} aba1298-24.doc drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1298 OF 2024 Siddheshwar Sanjay Jadhav APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Another RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. Sushant B. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for respondent - State .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 12 th AUGUST, 2024 ORDER :

1.

This is successive anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 336 of 2023 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. On 30th April, 2024, ABA No. 1932 of 2023, filed by the applicant was permitted to be withdrawn, as this Court was not inclined to grant relief to the applicant.

2.

Learned advocate for applicant submits that at that time, though charge sheet was filed, the same was not placed on

{2} aba1298-24.doc record before this Court. In the FIR lodged by the police, it is not mentioned that applicant was firing in the air. In the CCTV footage, the applicant is not seen firing in the air. According to him, these are the changed circumstances and hence, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.

Learned APP strenuously opposed the application. 4.

Earlier application filed by the applicant was extensively argued on merits and same arguments were advanced and this Court was not inclined to grant relief. Hence, the applicant was permitted to withdraw the application. Charge sheet is filed against the applicant under section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary for effective investigation. No change in circumstance is made out by the applicant. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application is, therefore, rejected.

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE drp/aba1298-24.doc