Chandrashekhar Haridas Hivase v. The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Warthi Tah.Mohadi Dist.Bhandara And Another
2025:BHC-NAG:9544 1 / 3 21-appp1476-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(APPP) NO.1476 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.833 OF 2022(D) Chandrashekhar Haridas Hivase Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.A.R.Fule, counsel for the applicant.
Mr.Aditya Gohokar, APP for the State.
Ms.Ragini Swami appointed counsel for non applicant no.2.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 22/09/2025 1.
The applicant has filed this criminal application for relaxation of the condition not to enter into the village Warthi, Tah. Mohadi, District Bhandara.
2.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has stated that the applicant is an agriculturists and he has to look after the agricultural work. As the condition is there, he cannot enter into the village to take care of his agricultural work.
2 / 3 21-appp1476-25 3.
The learned APP has stated that the trial is initiated and that the house of the applicant is at Pachgaon, which is 6 km away from the village Warthi, the victim is attending the college at Warthi and therefore, prayed to reject the application.
4.
The learned counsel appearing for the victim has stated that for twice, the applicant had tried to contact the victim, when she attended the trial. She has lodged the complaint, but the police has not taken any cognizance. Victim is regularly attending the college at Warthi and therefore, it is not safe for her to relax the condition by allowing the applicant to enter into village Warthi.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned APP and the learned appointed counsel appearing for non applicant no.2.
6.
Considering the act of the applicant that he had tried to contact the victim. From the status report called from the concerned trial court, it appears that the application for cancellation of bail is filed by the prosecution. Two witnesses are already examined. Considering the pendency of he application for cancellation of bail, on the basis of the complaints lodged by the victim and considering the status report and as it will not be safe
3 / 3 21-appp1476-25 for the victim, to allow the applicant to enter into the village Warthi. Hence, the application is rejected.
7. The application stands disposed of.
8. Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per rules.
JUDGE