Chetan S/O Uttamrao Dhawale And 3 Others v. State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ghatanji Tah. Ghatanji Dist.Yavatmal
ba278.21.O.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.278 OF 2021 (Chetan Uttamrao Dhawale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'
s orders of directions Court'
s or Judge'
s orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B. Dafle, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. N.S. Rao, APP for Non-Applicant/State.
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: 1 st SEPTEMBER, 2021.
Heard.
2.
The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime 92/2021 registered with Police Station Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatal, for offences punishable under sections 395, 353, 143, 147, 149, 188, 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act read with section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
3.
This Court (Coram: Shri Vinay Joshi, J) vide order dated 25.03.2021 granted interim bail observing thus:
2. By this application, the applicant is praying for grant of interim bail. It is pointed out that including the main accused, other 23 co-accused were protected by this Court.
3. The allegations are of stealing of mobile and register, which were already recovered.
The learned Counsel for applicants has drawn
ba278.21.O.odt my attention to the order passed by this Court on 19.03.2021 in Criminal Application (APPA) No. 502/2021 in Criminal Application (BA) No.238/2021 (Dilip Pundlik Nagrale .vrs. The State of Maharashtra), wherein interim protection has been granted to the accused no.1.
4.
It does not appear that there is any significant difference in the role attributed to, or allegations faced by, the accused who are granted pre-arrest bail by this court. In brief, the allegation is that the accused allegedly stole the Gram Panchayat record and the mobile phone of the complainant. It was fairly conceded, during the course of hearing of the pre-arrest bail application, that the mobile phone and the record were seized from the office of the Gram Panchayat the day next to lodging of the report. 5.
In so far as offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, there does not appear to be any material as such which would bring into play the said provision. The other allegations are obstructing the public servant etc. and the applicant is charged, inter alia under sections 353, 143, 147, 149, 188, 269 and 270 of IPC. Considering the nature of the accusations and particularly the fact that the most serious allegations levelled, which is that of theft is prima facie contentious, the interim bail granted vide order dated 25.03.2021 is confirmed. JUDGE NSN