Mangala Anna Ahire @ Mangala Dipak Gaikwad And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra
16-aba-1495-2024.doc Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1495 OF 2024 Mangala Anna Ahire @ Mangala Dipak Gaikwad and Anr.
... Applicants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent NIKITA KAILAS DARADE NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.07.10 10:33:35 +0530 Ms. Maya Updeshe a/w Pratik Thadani for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the State.
CORAM
: MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : JULY 9th, 2024.
P.C.:
1.
In this application, by order dated 31st May 2024, passed by this Court (Coram: Kishore Sant J.) interim order was passed in favour of the applicants and they were protected from arrest. 2.
Subsequently, in the order dated 21st June 2024, this Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the applicants that the dispute between the applicants and respondent has been settled. Copies of affidavit and relevant documents were placed before this Court. This Court directed the applicant to add informant as party respondent No.2, and notice was issued to the said respondent. 3.
Subsequently, in the order dated 1st July 2024, this Court recorded that according to the applicants the agreed amount had been paid to the respondent No.2-informant and an affidavit could be placed on record along with the proof of such payments made
16-aba-1495-2024.doc to respondent No.2.
4.
Today when the application is called out for hearing, learned counsel for the applicants has tendered an affidavit of the applicants, along with a copy of memorandum of understanding executed by the applicants with the respondent No.2-informant. Copies of bank statements and messages received from the bank showing amounts transferred by the applicants to the respondent No.2 have been annexed to the affidavit.
5.
The affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.
6.
Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.
7.
Learned APP on instructions, submits that according to the Investigating Officer, the parties have settled their dispute. It appears that the amount for which the informant had raised grievance has been paid by the applicants and that is the reason why the respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court. 8.
Considering the aforesaid chronology of events, this Court is convinced that interim order granted on 31st May 2024, granted in favour of the applicants can be absolute.
9.
Accordingly, the order is made absolute.
10.
The anticipatory bail application is disposed of. (MANISH PITALE J.)