Guddu Urf Harshu Shivnandan Pandey And Another v. State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur

1 aba712.20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 712 OF 2020 ( Guddu Urf Harshu Shivanandan Pandey and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Gittikhadan, Nagpur ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the applicants, Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 16-12-2020 None present for the applicants.

2.

The applicants are apprehending arrest in Crime 408/20 registered with Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The incident appears to be the fall out of a previous altercation with applicant Guddu Urf Harshu Pandey, who allegedly blocked the Pan Shop of the complainant by inappropriately parking his vehicle. 4.

I have perused the case diary.

5.

According to the report, the applicants were accompanied by 25 to 30 others. The applicants allegedly assaulted by fists and blows and then ran away with cash of Rs.3,000/-.

2 aba712.20 6.

Statements of two witnesses are recorded. The statements of eyewitnesses appear to be inconsistent with the version of the informant. The witnesses do not speak of any cash being stolen. The witnesses further state that Guddu Urf Harshu Pandey whose name was later on known, was accompanied by 3 to 4 persons. 7.

The applicants have attended the police station pursuant to interim protection.

8.

Considering the nature of the material on record, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

9.

The interim protection granted vide order dated 17-11-2020 is made absolute.

JUDGE adgokar