Anil Kisanrao Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Civil Lines Akola Dist Akola

2025:BHC-NAG:9392 1 39.aba.592.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.592/2025 Anil Kisanrao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra ................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order or directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A. Y. Dabli, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A. J. Gohokar, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State. CORAM :

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED :

18.09.2025 1.

The applicant has apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.253/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The allegations are made that the complainant has purchased wire and socket from the shop of the applicant. It was not working and therefore, he went there to return the same, then the quarrel took place between both of them and the applicant assaulted the complainant. 3.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that when the complainant tried to test said socket, he fell down from the staircase and he had injury. The allegations about assault by iron rod are made. The learned Counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant has not committed any offence. He is already protected by granting ad interim anticipatory bail. He is ready to abide by the conditions whatever imposed while granting interim protection. Hence, prayed to confirm the anticipatory bail granted by this Court.

2 39.aba.592.25.odt 4.

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the grievous injury is there. The little finger of the complainant was fractured. The rod is recovered. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

6.

Considering the nature of the offence and though the quarrel took place and the assault was there, the rod is already recovered. The custodial interrogation of this applicant is not necessary. Hence, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted is confirmed on the same terms and conditions contained in the order granting interim protection.

7.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) RGurnule