Rudraveer Alias Bajirao Kantilal Dalwale Thr Legal Guardian Kantilal Manikrao Dalwale v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:30373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1782 OF 2025 RUDRAVEER ALIAS BAJIRAO KANTILAL DALWALE THR. LEGAL GUARDIAN KANTILAL MANIKRAO DALWALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

• Mr. Siddharth B. Yawalkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. A. S. Sawant, Advocate for Applicant • Mr. R. K. Ingole, APP for Respondent - State ...

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 04.11.2025 PER COURT :

1.

The applicant has filed the present application seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2025, dated 02.04.2025, registered with Deopur Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 61(2), 229 of the Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 2.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said crime. The learned counsel submits that though the FIR attributes a specific role to the applicant, alleging that he assaulted the complainant with iron 1/5

rod, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the same is an exaggeration, as the CCTV footage clearly shows that the applicant was not in possession of any iron rod. It is further submitted that another eyewitness, Raj Chitte, who was present along with the injured victim Tarunkumar Chitte, clearly stated that it was the other three accused persons who have assaulted the victim Tarunkumar Chitte. However, there is no specific allegation of assault with iron rod against the present applicant.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a student, who has recently completed his 10th Standard Examination and that his career would be spoiled if he is arrested in the present case. The learned counsel therefore submits that, in view of the CCTV footage which also does not show the applicant using any iron rod to assault either the complainant or his cousin Raj Chitte. The applicant therefore, prays for protection till the conclusion of trial, as he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. 4.

As against this, Mr. Ingole, learned APP for the State, vehemently opposes the present application and submits that the present applicant, along with other accused persons, has committed a serious offence, as the victim/complainant Tarunkumar Chitte has sustained grievous injuries, including lacerated wounds over the 2/5

fronto-parietal and temporo-parietal regions, a wound on the lower leg, swelling over the forearm, abrasions over the right arm and shoulder, and the other blunt trauma injuries, which reflect the gravity of the assault carried out by the applicant along with other accused persons. He therefore, states that this is not the case for grant of anticipatory bail. The investigation is yet to be completed and if the applicant is released on bail at this stage, it may hamper the investigation, as the applicant could abscond or tamper with the evidence and may not be available for trial.

5.

I have perused the record along with the investigation papers made available by the learned APP. It appears from the First Information Report that a specific role is attributed to the present applicant for assaulting the complainant Tarunkumar Chitte, by means of iron rod. However, the cousin brother of the complainant Raj Chitte though specifically alleges about the presence of the applicant in the unlawful assembly, which has gathered. However, specific roles have been attributed to other co-accused for assault with iron road namely accused Kartik, Dinesh, and Prathamesh, and not the applicant.

6.

What is to be further seen from the record is that two iron rods are recovered from accused Dipak, and 3 from accused Prathamesh 3/5

and Dinesh. Thus, looking to the variance in the statement of the complainant and his cousin brother Raj Chitte, the applicant can be protected on the condition of attending the police station and cooperating with the Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial as the applicant is a student. Hence, I pass the following order:-

O R D E R

A) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2025, registered with Deopur Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, dated 02.04.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 61(2), 229 of the Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 , the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

B) The applicants are directed to attend the concerned Police Station and report to the Investigating Officer between 11:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m. on every Monday and Tuesday, and as and when called, until the filing of the charge-sheet. C) The applicant shall thereafter attend the trial without fail and may seek exemption only in case of genuine emergency.

D) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or attempt to influence or threaten any witness in any manner. A single incident of such conduct would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the present applicants.

4/5

E) The applicant shall furnish his residential address, contact number, and copies of his Aadhaar / PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer, and shall also provide the names, addresses, and contact numbers of his close relatives for the purpose of record and verification.

7.

In view of the above, the application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) 5/5