Vikrant Vijay Sahare v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ramnagar, Chandrapur, Tah. And Dist. Chandrapur
2025:BHC-NAG:5232
(1) 937.aba.248.2025,,,,,,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.248 OF 2025 Vikrant Vijay Sahare Vs.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Ramnagar Chandrapur, District Chandrapur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Anant Ghogare, APP for non-applicant / State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 07/05/2025 1.
Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.271/2025 registered with Police Station Ramnagar, Tahsil and District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2) and 308(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, applicant approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.
2.
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Venkateshwar Ramanna Reddy, on an allegation that one boy, namely H.R. Sandepalli Girish, a boy who is below 18 years of age, joined him at his establishment for work, but when he came to know that he was below 18 years of age, he asked him not to come for work, and there was no such incident happened about assaulting the boy. But the
(2) 937.aba.248.2025,,,,,, mother of the said boy and the present applicant came there and made a false allegation that he has assaulted the minor boy and also threatened him that he would lodge a complaint against him. On 20.03.20025, he sent two persons at the office of the present applicant and demanded the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him for not to file a complaint. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime.
3.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that only to pressurize the present applicant, this false complaint is filed by the informant. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, which is not required, as there is only allegation of demand of money. No such amount is handed over by the complainant or any other person to the present applicant.
4.
The learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that considering the allegation levelled against the present applicant, his custodial interrogation is required.
5.
On hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that as far as the allegations are concerned, admittedly, no amount is obtained from the complainant, therefore his custodial is not required. As far as the criminal antecedents are concerned, which are disclosed by
(3) 937.aba.248.2025,,,,,, the applicant.
During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has not yet recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses. Thus, considering the same, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. In view of that, the interim protection granted to the present applicant deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The interim protection granted to the present applicant by order dated 15.04.2024 is hereby confirmed on the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in week on Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
(iii) The applicant shall not induce threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate