Pramod Vijay Aatar v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:25801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 11 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1661 OF 2025
1. Pramod S/o. Vijay Aatar, Age: 23 yrs, Occ. - Agriculture, R/o. Aatar Vasti, Koregaon, Taluka: Shrigonda, District: Ahilyanagar.
...Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent .....
Ms. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for Respondent - State .....
CORAM
:
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE :
22.09.2025 PER COURT :
1.
Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant. Perused the papers on record.
2.
This is a successive Bail Application by the Applicant. The earlier Bail Application No.649/2025 was withdrawn to the extent of the Applicant by an order dated 22/04/2025. The relevant Paragraphs from the said order are reproduced below :- "1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2.
At the outset, in ABA/649/2025, the learned Counsel for the applicants seeks leave to withdraw the application in respect of applicant No.1 - Pramod Vijay Aatar, after arguing the matter for some time. Leave is granted. The application is accordingly
dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of applicant No.1 - Pramod Vijay Aatar. Interim protection granted to applicant No.1 by order dated 17/04/2025 stands vacated.
3.
The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.0185/2025 dated 24/03/2025, registered with Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, and subsequently added Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.
4.
The grievous head injury sustained by the informant is attributed to accused Pramod Vijay Aatar. Consequently, the application on his behalf has been withdrawn by his Counsel. As regards the other injuries sustained, they are simple in nature. It is also noted that there is a pending civil dispute between the parties concerning land, and criminal cases have been filed against each other. 3.
The Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0185/2025 dated 24/03/2025, registered with Karjat Police, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 (subsequently added) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, and therefore, he has approached this Court for the second time by preferring this Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4.
The case of Prosecution, in brief, is that, in the morning of 21/03/2025, the Informant was assaulted by the FIR named Accused with deadly weapons due to the previous enmity.
5.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that, the Informant himself is Accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.78/2023 and he
was absconding in that case and, surprisingly, on 25/03/2025, he came to be arrested in execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant [NBW] produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. In that case, the Applicant was the Informant and was hit by a bullet in the leg. She submitted that, this is a case of subjugation of a witness. The alleged weapon, i.e. sword, which in fact was not a sword but a small blade / katti, has been recovered, and therefore, the Application may be allowed.
6.
The factors that, the Informant in the present crime / case was the Accused No.3 in another case and absconding for a period one [01] year and subsequently arrested, will have no bearing as far as this Application is concerned. The incident reported by way of the present FIR is prior to the arrest of the Informant in the said another case. The positive role of assault is attributed to the Applicant by deadly weapons on the head of the Informant. The said assault, as seen from the observations in Paragraph No.4 of the above-referred order, resulted in grievous injury to the Informant. This shows that, prima facie case exists against the Applicant for serious offence. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
.
The Application is rejected.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/09/2025 19:39:33