Pratik Prashant Suryawanshi v. State Of Maharashtra

Harish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION. NO. 292 OF 2025 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Pratik Prashant Suryawanshi ...Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:

2025.11.10 19:19:32 +0530 ------ Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b Ishan Paradkar for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. Deokar, APP for the State.

------ CORAM :

SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE :

7th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C.:

1.

The applicant is seeking regular bail in crime no.620 of 2023 registered with Islampur Police Station, Sangli DistSangli for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 341, 506, 143, 147, 149, 109 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 3rd December, 2023, at 7.00 p.m., the applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant and his maternal uncle with wooden stick and iron rod on the 1/3

ground of old dispute. Initially, the offence was registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, while taking treatment, the maternal uncle of the first informant is died, hence, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is added. 3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bar more than two years. There is no progress in trial. There are no specific allegations against the applicant and requested to allow the application. 4.

It is contention of learned APP that in the FIR, specific role is attributed to the applicant that he assaulted the first informant and his maternal uncle with wooden stick. The applicant and his maternal uncle had brutally beaten by the applicant and co-accused. In the said assault, the maternal uncle of the first informant is died and first informant was seriously injured. If the applicant released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and the first informant. Hence, requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.

6.

In the FIR, the first informant has specifically referred 2/3

about the role of the applicant that the applicant had assaulted him and his maternal uncle with wooden stick. There is direct evidence against the applicant. Charge is framed. The trial is in progress. The first informant is injured in the attack made by the applicant and co-accused. If the applicant released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, I pass following order:

ORDER

Application is rejected.

[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 3/3