Kiran Babaji Daundkar v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2025 Kiran Babaji Daundkar ...Applicant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2025 ....
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil i/b Ms. Saili D.,Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar for complainant and applicant in I.A. 194/2025 Ms. R. D. Humane, A.P.P. for the Respondent - State. ....
CORAM
:
N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
24.01.2025.
P.C.
:
1.
This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 1059 of 2024 registered at Shikrapur Police Station District- Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 118 (2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023.
3.
According to the prosecution, on the date of incident which took place on 18.8.2024, at about 10.00 a.m. the complainant was returning home from his field by tempo vehicle. It is alleged that when the complainant
was near his house at that time, the present applicant shouted at the complainant in abusive language as according to the applicant the complainant was driving the vehicle in rash manner. It is alleged that on account of said issue, altercation took place between the applicant and the complainant. It is alleged that during the said altercation the present applicant and other co-accused assaulted the complainant and his other family members, by sticks. It is alleged that in the incident, the complainant had sustained grievous injury.
4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent/State so also the learned counsel for the complainant/intervenor. 5.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the incident in question the complainant and his family members had assaulted the applicant and thus applicant was also injured. It is submitted that there is a cross FIR to that effect. It is submitted that incident is not premeditated as, there was no previous enmity between the parties. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. It is submitted that considering the overall circumstances the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.
6.
On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the complainant/intervenor submit that due to assault the complainant had suffered two injuries, and was required to be operated. It is submitted that because of the said
injury, the complainant has been advised not to drive the vehicle and therefore the complainant is likely to loose his likelihood. It is submitted that the applicant may not be therefore released on anticipatory bail.
7.
Considering the nature of injuries i.e. Head injury and Clavicle fracture, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected.
8.
The observations in this order are prima-facie. Needless to mention that the trial/other proceedings shall be decided without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
The interim application is disposed of.
(N. R. BORKAR, J.)