Kiran Rajaram Dhawade v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:13288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 58 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 498 OF 2025 KIRAN RAJARAM DHAWADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin Subhash Panale APP for Respondent/State: Mr. G. O. Wattamwar ...

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.40/2025, registered at Belwandi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 25(4) of the Arms Act, 1959.

3] This court by order dated 23.04.2025 granted interim protection to the applicant noticing submissions at paragraphs no.3, 4 and 5, as under:

"3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the scene of the crime as he was online working from his home as he was employed with the

company namely Blackbuck Insides Private Limited. He was directed to provide the details of the same to the Investigating Officer so that some investigation can be carried out in this respect.

4] The learned APP submits that the data provided by the applicant cannot be verified and that he has to give detailed explanation and also the details of the employer and the phone number of the employer.

5] Considering the submissions of the applicant, the applicant can be granted interim protection and directed to attend the concerned police station with all the details. However, the applicant is put to notice that in the event he applicant's statement is found to be false the anticipatory bail application would be rejected and may possibly further consequential action would be initiated against the applicant."

4] Thereafter the Investigating Officer has verified that whether the applicant was working from home for the company and that report is submitted that on 14.02.2025 the applicant while working from home at 14:08 to 14:09 hours has made communication with the H.R. while working and the incidence is dated 14.02.2025 from 14:00 at 14:30 hours.

5] Prima faice, considering the same, there is doubt as regards the involvement of the applicant, as such, interim protection can be confirmed.

6] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 23.04.2025 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.

7] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

8] 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.

9] The application stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe