Prakash Pandurang Gaikar v. State Of Maharashtra

915_ABA_2949_24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2949 OF 2024 Prakash Pandurang Gaikar ...

Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, i/b. Ms. Keral Mehta for applicant. Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE :

03rd DECEMBER, 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2.

On 12.11.2024, this Court granted interim relief in favour of the applicant, by observing as follows:

"6.

This Court is of the opinion that since the original statement of the informant, leading to registration of FIR, refers to assault only by means of fists and kicks and there is no reference to use of any weapon, prima facie it can be said that subsequent improvement has been made by the informant. It appears that the incident has happened in the backdrop of a minor dispute pertaining to parking of vehicle between the informant and son of the applicant. Considering the fact that the parties are residents of the same neighbourhood and a specific statement is made that with passage of time, the parties have come around for amicably settling their dispute, while keeping the present application pending, interim relief can be granted in favour of the applicant."

Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

2024.12.03 16:21:33 +0530 PRIYA KAMBLI 1/2

915_ABA_2949_24.doc 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant further informs this Court that now the applicant and the informant have made efforts to amicably resolve their disputes, as the incident arose out of a frivolous altercation pertaining to parking of vehicle. In fact, it is submitted that the parties have now signed a document, indicating mutual settlement of the disputes. It is indicated that the parties may move appropriate proceedings for quashing of the FIR itself. It is submitted that the applicant did appear before the investigating officer and apprised him also about the aforesaid development. 4.

In view of the above, the interim order dated 12.11.2024 is made absolute and the application is allowed. The applicant shall continue to co-operate with the investigation officer. (MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 2/2