Pintu @ Annarao Baburao Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra

1/2 Yadav 2­A.aba.711.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 711 OF 2018 Pintu @ Annarao Baburao Patil ...

Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate I/by Priyal G. Sarda for Applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent - State. CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE :

MARCH 8, 2019.

P.C. :

.

In Crime No. 22 of 2018 for an offence punishable under Sections 379, 353, 308, 115, 189, 511, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 & 15 of the Environment Protection Act, the Applicant is seeking pre­arrest bail.

2.

Heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel for Applicant.

3.

It is claimed that the role attributed to the Applicant is at par with co­accused Hanmant Patil who is already ordered to be released on pre­arrest bail. The further submission is, in most of the cases the

2/2 Yadav 2­A.aba.711.18 Applicant is already acquitted. It is submitted that in the present crime, Applicant is falsely implicated out of the political rivalry. 4.

The learned Senior Counsel for Applicant would urge that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not warranted, as the Applicant is very much available to co­operate with the investigation. 5.

Per contra, the learned APP opposed the claim based on the contents of FIR and also the criminal antecedents. 6.

Having considered the rival submissions, what is noticed is, the presence of the Applicant on the spot of the offence can be inferred from the statement of co­accused who were apprehended from the spot of the incident.

7.

Apart from above, this Court cannot overlook the antecedents of similar nature against the Applicant. The ground of political rivalry, in my opinion, is too vague to appreciate.

8.

That being so, no case for grant of pre­arrest bail is made out. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)