Chandrashekhar Alias Balu Ram Janmale v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:13041 {1} 702-25-BA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 702 OF 2025 Chandrashekar @ Balu S/o Ram Janmale Age-42 years, Occupation - Labourer, R/o. Bakli, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur.

....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through Officer Incharge, Police Station Vivekanand Chowk, Latur.

.....Respondent .....

Mr. Vishwajeet R. Jain, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N.D. Batule, APP for Respondent - State .....

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

RESERVED ON : 02 May 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 05 May, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Present application is for grant of regular bail on account of arrest of applicant in Crime No.0737 of 2024, registered at Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, District Latur, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2.

It is submitted that applicant is arrested in above crime on 23.11.2024 and he is behind bars for last 6 to 7 months. That, there

{2} 702-25-BA are allegations that there was some money transactions between informant's husband and present applicant. However, according to the learned counsel, statement of her husband was not recorded. That, there are allegations of assault by means of razor blade. That, injuries are simple in nature. That, whatever was to be recovered and discovered is already effected. That, no purpose would be served by further detention of the applicant. As there are no prospects of matter going for trial in near future, learned counsel urges for grant of bail.

4.

The learned APP opposed the application on the ground that eight injuries were inflicted with a sharp weapon, some of which are grievous in nature. That, injuries are inflicted on throat, which is a vital part. According to the learned APP, serious offence like attempt to commit murder is committed, and hence, bail is sought to be rejected.

5.

Heard. Perused the papers. FIR dated 23.11.2024 is at the instanced of one Sonali Bharti. She claims that her husband Madhav and present applicant were working as driver and cleaner respectively, and there were money transactions between them. She reported that, on 15.11.2024, applicant came to her home to demand

{3} 702-25-BA money back, and gave abuses and issued threats. The said occurrence of 15.11.2024 is also reported to the Vivekanand Police Station. She further stated that on 22.11.2024, present applicant came to her house and questioned her for not responding to the phone call. That, while she was about to shove him off and closed the channel gate, it is alleged that, she was pushed, and thereafter, he inflicted blows by sharp weapon like blade on her throat, face, etc. On her above report, crime has been registered.

6.

The medical papers are also part of the documents placed before this Court. They indicate that there are six incised wounds, namely on the anterior neck, at the angle of the mouth, below the right mandibular region, over the right lateral cheek, on the right side of the chin, and near the right temporal region close to the eye. The examining doctor has certified the injuries as fresh and grievous. Papers also show that present applicant has suffered two abrasions. Thus, there seems to be some scuffle between informant and present applicant in which informant has allegedly suffered eight incised wounds. Body parts like neck and temporal region are said to be targated.

{4} 702-25-BA 7.

In view of above material, considering the numbers, nature and sites of injuries, it appears that there is massive beating. Therefore, even though charge-sheet is filed, with such nature of allegations, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant relief. Hence, following order.

ORDER

Bail Application is rejected.

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGE S P Rane