Nana Alias Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Teware v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Mangrul Chawala, Dist. Amravati
2025:BHC-NAG:3730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.162 OF 2025 (Nana alias Dnyaneshwar Shankarrao Teware Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Mangrul Chawala, Dist. Amravati) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. G. Karmarkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. C. A. Lokhande, APP for Non-Applicant/State. CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE: 7 th APRIL, 2025.
1.
Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.15/2025 registered with Police Station Mangrul, District Amravati (Gramin), for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 351(2), 118(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant approached to this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged by wife of the injured alleging that the two vehicles came in front of each other and there was hot exchange of words and on that count present applicant alleged to have picked up the iron rod from his vehicle and assaulted the injured on his hands and legs. The recitals of the FIR further shows that it was the present applicant who removed the injured to the hospital and also informed to the relatives of
the injured. Thus, considering the subsequent conduct of the present applicant there was no intention to cause any grievous injuries to the injured, but due to the hot exchange of words the applicant might have lost his control and the alleged incident has occurred. He has already co-operated with the Investigating Agency.
3.
Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of seizure of the weapon.
4.
On perusal of the recitals of the FIR and the submissions made by the learned counsel it reveals that suddenly the incident has occurred as two vehicles came in front of each other and the applicant has lost his vehicle. Now, the weapon as well as the vehicle both are seized. Custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. There is no allegation that the applicant was not co-operated with the investigating agency. For all of the above reasons, the application deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
O R D E R
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The interim protection granted to the present applicant by order dated 10.03.2025 is hereby confirmed on the condition that the applicant shall attend
the concerned police station once in a week on Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.
(iii) The applicant shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
5.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) NSN