Ravindrakumar Baburao Wagh v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:13285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 55 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2025 RAVINDRAKUMAR BABURAO WAGH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicant :
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav a/w. Mr. Neeraj Chudiwal APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 05.05.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0296/2024, registered at Bhokardan Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 88, 91, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 3, 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, under Sections 3(a), 3(b), 23 of the PCPNDT Act and under Sections 3, 6 of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission Act.
3] This court by order dated 25.03.2025 granted interim protection to the applicant noticing the submissions at paragraph no.3, as under:
"3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are no antecedents against the present applicant and no evidence is available against the applicant to connect in the alleged crime. He further submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that he has conducted the medical termination of one of the patient, who has sent by Mr. Nanasaheb. He further submits that the call details of the applicant do not match with the call details of the Nanasaheb, so also, with the patient. He submits that the call details of other three Doctors, who are the co-accused, have matched with the call details of Nanasaheb. He further submits that the other three Doctors are protected by interim orders."
4] The learned APP today has taken me through the statement of Mrs. Lata Govind Surushe. He points out that the statement is made against the applicant by the ladies, who had gone for termination of pregnancy and it is seen from the statement that it was Mr. Nana Sahane suggesting the name of the applicant had given the chit for termination of pregnancy.
5] Prima facie, there is no material to indicate the nature of pregnancy, the time of pregnancy, the number of weeks of pregnancy, so also, I have also noticed in the earlier order that there is no call record between Nana
Sahane with the applicant, so also, with the patient. However, the call details of other three doctors, who are the co-accused have matched with the call details of Nana Sahane, who have been granted protection and that there are no antecedents qua the applicant.
6] Considering that there are no antecedents and, prima facie, that the evidence connecting the applicant with the crime being scanty, the interim protection granted by order dated 25.03.2025 can be confirmed.
7] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 25.03.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:
i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
8] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
9] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
10] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe