Akshay Shrihari Manne v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Pso Ps Bhadrawati Dist Chandrapur

2024:BHC-NAG:8494

(1) 20.aba.520.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.520 OF 2024 Akshay Shrihari Manne Vs.

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Bhadrawati, 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. M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant.

Ms. Soniya Thakur, APP for respondent/State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 01/08/2024 1.

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.329/2024 registered with Police Station Bhadrawati, District - Chandrapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 and 294 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1949, the applicant approached to this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that as far as the allegations in the FIR against the present applicant is concerned, which is only to the extent of advising the informant, the allegations of possessing the fire arm is not against the present applicant, therefore his custodial interrogation is not required. He has already

(2) 20.aba.520.2024 cooperated with the investigating agency and attended the police station whenever he was called. 3.

Ms. Soniya Thakur, learned APP strongly opposed the said application on the ground that in furtherance of the common object the act was committed by the present applicant however, she fairly submitted that the incriminating weapon is already recovered.

4.

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State, perused the recitals of the FIR from which it reveals that only allegation against the present applicant is that he has abused in a filthy language to the informant. Thus, considering the role attributed to the applicant and considering the facts that he has cooperated with the investigating agency, the incriminating weapon is also recovered. His custodial interrogation is not required. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

The interim protection granted to the applicant by order dated 16.07.2024 is hereby confirmed with the similar terms and conditions.

5.

The application is disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate