Akhilesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Yadav ( In Jail) v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Wadi Dist. Nagpur
2025:BHC-NAG:2092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.179 OF 2025 (Yashkumar s/o Arvindkumar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra) AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.180 OF 2025 (Akhilesh Kumar s/o Omprakash Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.V. Khaparde, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP for the State in BA No.179/2025. Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the State in BA No.180/2025. Mr. A.V. Shrivastava, Advocate for Assist to Prosecution. CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- FEBRUARY 27, 2025.
Heard.
2.
By these applications, the applicants are seeking bail as they came to be arrested on 19/01/2025 in connection with Crime No.18/2025 registered with police station Wadi, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 140(2), 351(1), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3.
The crime is registered on basis of report lodged by the informant on an allegation that co-accused Sanjay Kumar Yadav's daughter eloped with one Ajay Vishvakarma on 16/01/2025 from Prayagraj (UP). The accused persons along with the applicants followed his
daughter and said Ajay Vishvakarma. The accused Sanjay Kumar Yadav came to know about the detail of his daughter that she is residing at Nagpur with Akhilesh Gautam at his rented premises. On 19/01/2025 the accused persons abducted the victim to know about the whereabouts of his daughter. As soon as the victim's friend learnt that the accused persons are taken victim along with him he lodged the report against all the accused persons. He submitted that as far as the present applicants are concerned they are implicated only because they are the friends of the co-accused. As far as the role attributed to them is concerned which is general allegations levelled against them. Now, investigation is already completed and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the present applicants is not required.
4.
Learned APP strongly opposed the applications and submitted that the victim was abducted by the present applicants and the other co-accused and the involvement of the present applicants revealed from the investigation papers.
5.
Learned Counsel for the complainant also appeared before the Court and submitted that mistakenly the names of the present applicants are mentioned. In fact, he has no grievance against the present applicants. 6.
I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the investigation papers from which it
reveals that now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. As far as further incarceration is concerned which is not required. Considering the role of the present applicants, they have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Both the applications are allowed.
(ii) The applicants - 1) Yashkumar s/o Arvindkumar Yadav and 2) Akhilesh Kumar s/ o Omprakash Yadav in connection with Crime No.18/2025 registered with police station Wadi, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 140(2), 351(1), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount.
(iii) The applicants shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case in any manner either personally or by way of electronic media.
(iv) The applicants shall attend the proceeding before the trial Court without
seeking any exemption unless there are exceptional circumstances.
7.
The contravention of any of the condition imposed by this Court, would lead to the cancellation of bail.
8.
Both the applications are disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya