Bhivaji @ Bhikaji Nagnath Vavre v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1288 OF 2024 Bhivaji @ Bhikaji Nagnath Vavre .... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

.... Respondents ----- Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. Ms. Vaishnavi Gaikwad i/b Mr. Rushikesh Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

----- CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date:

2025.12.26 11:41:38 +0530 SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

The Applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No.13 of 2024 registered at Salgar Vasti Police Station, Solapur City, District: Solapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 385, 294, 506, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC").

2.

It is prosecution's case that on 5th February, 2024 at around 12:00 p.m., the Applicant and co-accused assaulted the first informant with a cutter blade and a stone with an intention to kill him in the Shantanu S. Dhudum 1/3

Gramsabha.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that while on interim relief, the Applicant has co-operated with the investigation. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The first informant has no objection to allow the application, and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant had assaulted the first informant with a cutter blade and it is not recovered. For recovery of weapon, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required, and requested to reject the application. 5.

It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the Applicant due to misunderstanding. He has no objection to allow the application. 6.

I have heard all learned counsel, perused the F.I.R. and documents produced on record.

7.

The Applicant is on interim relief for one year and has cooperated with investigation and charge-sheet is filed. 8.

It is contention of learned counsel for first informant that the complaint was filed due to misunderstanding, and he has no objection to allow the application. Considering these facts, I pass Shantanu S. Dhudum 2/3

following order:

ORDER

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The interim relief granted by this Court (Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal, J) vide order dated 8th May, 2024, is made absolute.

iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

9.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

10.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/3