Lingappa Devendra Angargi v. State Of Maharashtra
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4225 of 2025 Lingappa Devendra Angargi ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Wasim Prandarwala, for the Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for the State-Respondent. API - Vinod Vasave, Worli Police Station, is present.
CORAM
Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
DATED:
PC:- 1.
The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No. 121 of 2024 dated 16th February 2024 registered with Worli Police Station, Brihanmumbai City for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC").
2.
The facts of the case, as discerned from the FIR, are that there was an alleged relationship between the victim and the Applicant. The First Informant is the husband of the victim.
According to him, the Applicant's family had dissuaded the Applicant from meeting the victim and perpetuate their relationship. Nonetheless, the Applicant continued to meet the victim. On 16th February 2024 at around 11.00 a.m., when the First Informant had left his house to buy vegetables from the local market, the Applicant entered the house and stabbed the victim in her abdomen with a knife. The victim took out the knife and the same fell on the floor in the house. She shouted for help, upon which some neighbours came and saw the Applicant fleeing from the spot. He was wearing a saffron coloured shirt and had blood stains on the same. The First Informant/husband made a complaint with the police, pursuant to which the FIR is registered and the Applicant was arrested.
3.
Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP, has referred to the statement of the injured victim herself, where she clearly implicates the Applicant as the person who stabbed her in the abdomen. There is also a statement of the victim's minor
daughter, aged 9 years, who has also witnessed the incident. He thus, prays that the application be rejected. 4.
Per contra, Mr. Wasim Prandarwala, learned Counsel for the Applicant, at the very outset, draws my attention to the roznama of the Trial Court. Albeit the charges are framed on 18th December 2024, till date the Trial Court has not proceeded further at all. As demonstrated in the roznama of the Trial Court as on 23rd September 2025, the said Court is vacant. In these circumstances, the Trial Court is not likely to conclude the trial in the foreseeable future. However, Mr. Dabke submits that there are only 8 to 10 witnesses that the prosecution intends to examine.
5.
In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to record the depositions of the key witnesses namely the injured victim, the First Informant and the minor daughter who claims to have witnessed the incident, within a period of four months from today, failing which the Applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
6.
In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Prandarwala seeks permission to withdraw the present Bail Application with liberty as aforesaid.
7.
Permitted to withdraw is granted with the aforesaid liberty.
8.
The present Bail Application is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)