Onkar Krushnaji Mahadik v. State Of Maharashtra

902_ABA_1737_24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1737 OF 2024 Onkar Krushnaji Mahadik ...

Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and another ...

Respondents Mr. Salman Pathan for applicant.

Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for respondent No.1-State. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE :

03rd JULY, 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent No.1-State.

2.

The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No.0170 of 2024 dated 14.04.2024 registered at Police Station Baramati, District Pune Rural for offences under Sections 25, 3, 4 and 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 135, 37(1) and 37(3) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 3.

The offence under Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 is a non-bailable offence punishable for imprisonment of seven years. 4.

According to the investigating authority, the applicant before this Court is the person, who supplied pistol to the other accused persons. 5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that other than the statement of the co-accused person, there is nothing to link the applicant Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

2024.07.03 14:25:09 +0530 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI

902_ABA_1737_24.doc with the present case. He submits that merely because the applicant has some criminal antecedents, that ought not to be considered as a sole factor for denying relief in the present application. 6.

The learned APP has specifically brought to the notice of this Court that there are two cases already registered against the applicant. One case is CR No.740 of 2021 registered at Police Station Baramati for offences under Sections 5 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Second offence is recently registered against the applicant at Police Station Bhigwan bearing CR No.56 of 2024 for offences under Sections 307, 324, 327, 323, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is reported that after registration of the aforesaid offences, the applicant is absconding. 7.

Considering the background of the applicant, as also the specific allegation in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail.

8.

The application is dismissed.

(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 2/2