Ghansham Trimbak Ingale And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:5859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 958 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1521 OF 2024

1. GHANSHAM TRIMBAK INGALE

2. SUDAM TRIMBAK INGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1444 OF 2024

1. ACHYUT HOUSRAO INGALE

2. TRIMBAK HOUSRAO INGALE

3. RESHMA GHANSHYAM INGALE

4. PRASHANT PURSHOTTAM INGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 28.02.2025 P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2] The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0732/2024, dated 31.07.2024,

registered at Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 151, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3] In ABA/1444/2024, the learned counsel submits that the applicant no.1 - ACHYUT HOUSRAO INGALE has been arrested and released on regular bail. So also, in ABA/1521/2024, the learned counsel submits that applicant no.2 - SUDAM TRIMBAK INGALE has been arrested and released on regular bail.

This court vide orders dated 23.09.2024 recorded that the respective applications against the respective applicants are disposed of as infructuous. 4] This court by orders dated 23.09.2024 and 24.10.2024 granted interim protection to the remaining applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that thereafter the applicants have cooperated with the investigation.

5] In the instant case, there are cross-FIRs filed for the same incident as there is fight between the two groups of people.

6] Today, the learned APP has pointed out the injury certificate of the injured. The present applicants have

assaulted Vaman. The medical certificate of Vaman shows that he has received three injuries of which one is nesal bone fracture which is stated to be serious. It is also stated that Vaman has been assaulted by 5 persons including the applicants using iron rod and sticks.

7] The learned APP has opposed the confirmation of the interim relief considering that grievous injury is caused to Vaman and also that for Ghanshaym there are two antecedents.

8] The learned counsel for the applicants stated that two of the applicant at the relevant time were not at the place and he has produced certain photographs that the two applicants were somewhere 16 Kms away for the admission of their niece.

9] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the two offences registered are between the accused no.1 - Purushottam and accused no.6 - Ghanshyam. He submits that they have settled their dispute and they are in the process of filing the necessary proceedings. The same also arise out of some dispute of boundary.

10] Considering the injury certificate of Vaman, wherein he was received 3 injuries of which only one is serious on nesal bone and considering the fact that the FIR

is registered after 22 hours, the possibility of over implication cannot be ruled out. As such, the interim protection granted earlier can be confirmed.

11] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by orders dated 23.09.2024 and 24.10.2024 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

i] The applicants shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

12] In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

13] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

14] The applications stand disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe