Manish S/O Omkar Wasnik v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, P. S. Koradi, Dist. Nagpur

937.aba.194.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.194 OF 2025 (Manish s/o Omkar Wasnik Vs. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for the State.

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED :- APRIL 3, 2025.

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.56/2025 registered with Police Station Koradi, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. 2.

The allegation against the present applicant is on the basis of report lodged by Jayantkumar Vinayakrao Bhatkulkar who is Security Officer at Koradi Power Plant alleging that the present applicant and other co-accused entered illegally in the premises and committed a theft; however, they were chased and out of them two persons were caught and articles are seized fro them. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

3.

As the applicant is apprehending arrest, he approached to this Court on the ground that his

937.aba.194.25.odt involvement is not revealed from the investigation papers, nothing is to be recovered from the present applicant. In view of that, he be protected by granting anticipatory bail. 4.

Learned APP strongly opposed the application on the ground that 24 offences of similar nature are registered against the present applicant. They have not only committed the theft but they have also pelted a stone towards the Security Officer due to which Security Officer has sustained the injuries. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

5.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, the involvement of the present applicant is revealed. The antecedents i.e. 24 offences of similar nature are registered against the present applicant. Considering the same, the application deserves to be rejected. 6.

Hence, the application is hereby rejected accordingly.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya