Ankush Rajendra Patrikar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Yavatmal City, Taluka And Dist. Yavatmal

2025:BHC-NAG:10773 1 28.BA.945.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 945/2025 Ankush Rajendra Patrikar Vs. The State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Syed Salman Ali with Mr. F. R. Kashif, Advocate for the Applicant.

Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,J.

DATED : 13/10/2025.

.

Heard.

2.

The applicant is arrested in Crime No.794/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 109, 309(6), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case is that on 4.8.2024 at about 7.15 p.m. 3.

The prosecution case is that on 4.8.2024 at about 7.15 p.m. when the informant was in shop, he heard shouts from the shop of his cousin brother Ganesh. He rushed in said shop and observed that his cousin brother Ganesh was lying down in front of his shop and three unknown persons were beating him and forcibly trying to snatch the golden ring from the finger of his brother. They asked him to give said ring. One of the assailants was having sword in his hand. When the informant intervened, the person holding sword attempted to kill him by assaulting him with same weapon but somehow he saved himself. The accused persons assaulted and robbed his brother to cause terror.

4.

The first informant has lodged the report and the crime is registered.

2 28.BA.945.25 5.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that the co-accused is already released on bail Though the sword mentioned and it is recovered from this applicant, from the injury certificate, it can be seen that the sword is not used. As the injured is already discharged and co-accused is released on bail, on the ground of parity, he prayed to release the applicant on bail.

6.

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the earlier bail was granted considering the tender age of the applicant and role attributed to the said applicant. In this case, the applicant used the sword. The recovery of the sword is from this applicant. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

7.

Heard both the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

8.

The injured is discharged. On going through the Medical Certificate, it appears that there is no any cut injury. As per the Medical Report, hard and blunt object is used. As the injured is discharged and the co-accused is already released on bail, the ground of parity is available. Hence, the applicant is deserved to be released on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : i] The criminal application is allowed.

ii] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.794/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 109, 309(6), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, on furnishing P.R. Bond of

3 28.BA.945.25 Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

iii] The applicant shall not in any way tamper with the prosecution evidence.

iv] The applicant shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

v] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday and Saturday between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

vi] The applicant shall co-operate the Investigation Officer.

The Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) RGurnule