← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/2056/2024dismissed

Sachin Dattatray Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2024-12-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker2 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:29042 1 933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2056 OF 2024 SACHIN DATTATRAY PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Barhate Patil Avinash N. APP for Respondent/State: Ms. V. S. Choudhari ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 10th DECEMBER, 2024 PER COURT:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0539/2024, dated 01.10.2024, registered at Shirdi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3.

It is the case that the informant that the applicant along with 2 other persons assaulted the informant by sickle and that there are grievous injuries on the applicant. As such, the above offences is registered against the applicant and 2 others.

2 933 4.

It is the case of the applicant that in the FIR it is mentioned that the informant got injured by sickle, which is not attributed to the present applicant. However, only in the supplementary statement it is mentioned that the applicant has also assaulted with sickle. He submits that the informant is history-sheeter against whom 9 serious offences are also registered. 5.

The learned APP points out that all the three assailants were present with the sickle there are corresponding 7 injuries on the victim, which are grievous in nature and that there are also eye witnesses to the incident.

6.

Considering the seriousness of the offence and the evidence of eye witnesses, prima facie, it cannot be said that the applicant is not involved in the offence. The injuries are serious in nature. There is also one antecedent of the applicant. As such, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7.

The Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe