Haji Bashir Haji Abdul Sattar Ashrafi v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Gittikhadan, Nagpur City

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2025.03.07 18:27:58 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 594 OF 2025 Popat Khandu Bansode ..... Applicant

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Mr. Ravindra Pachundkar a/w. Ms.Urmisha Vargante for the Applicant. Mr. Ajay Patil, A.P.P. for the State.

Ms.Punam S. Magdum, P.S.I., Miraj Rural Police Station present. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 6th MARCH,2025 P.C. :- This application is filed for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 0069 dated 30th January, 2025 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station, Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the husband of the informant committed suicide as he was threatened by the present

2/4 applicant that he will kill him and his wife, if the subject land is not transferred in his name. The deceased therefore got afraid. Hence, in the morning of 29th December, 2024, the wife of the deceased found froth coming from the mouth of the deceased. Accordingly, he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Miraj. The nephew of the informant showed her a video which was sent by the deceased on his mobile phone. In the said video, the deceased has stated that he is committing suicide due to the harassment meant out by the applicant for last 15 to 20 days and so also that the applicant threatened him to withdraw the criminal cases filed against the applicant, should not lodge more criminal cases against him and further threatened to transfer the land in his name.

Based on this kind of facts, an FIR has been lodged by the informant on 30th January, 2025. The applicant thereafter filed anticipatory bail application before the Special Judge (Atrocity Act). After the parties were heard, the Sessions Court at Sangli rejected the application of the present applicant. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the first informant.

3.

The case of the applicant is that the applicant is ready to co-

3/4 operate with the police. It is further submitted that it is unfortunate that the alleged incident happened. However, the same is not due to harassment meant out by the applicant. Even by watching the alleged video, it can be seen that the present applicant had not committed such acts to force the informant's husband to commit suicide. 4.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the present applicant is threatening the first informant that he will commit suicide by directing the complainant to withdraw the cases registered against him. The custody of the present applicant is necessary. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application should be rejected as this is a case of suicide committed by the husband of the first informant due to the fear of the applicant.

5.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant has a criminal antecedents. There are high chances if the bail is granted to the applicant, they will tamper with the prosecution evidence. So also, there will be a threat to the life of the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application should be rejected.

4/4 6.

I have heard both the learned counsel and I have gone through the FIR and the documents on record. In the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant became afraid due to the conduct of the informant. The video which was circulated shows that the present informant had a greater role to play. The applicant has threatened them that cases pending against the present applicant should be withdrawn. It seems that the act of the applicant ultimately forced the deceased to commit suicide. There is high possibility that if granted bail to the applicant, the present applicant will tamper with evidence, physical presence of the applicant for interrogation is necessary for completion of the investigation.

7.

Hence, anticipatory bail application stands rejected. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]