Shivaji Rustum Dhande v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Mehkar Dist. Buldhana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2025 Atharv Paresh Parkar ...Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

____________________________________ Mr. Vishal D. Khetre, Advocate for the Applicant. Adv. Sarvesh Deshpande i/b. Tejas Dande & Assocaites, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Ms. Sonali Ahire, PSI Rabodi Police Station present. ____________________________________

CORAM

: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 12 MARCH 2025 P.C.:

1.

After the matter was argued for some time, Mr. Khetre, the learned Advocate for the applicant, submitted that the name of the present applicant was not mentioned in the FIR. It was only after a statement under Section 164 was recorded that his name was added. He further submits that Atharva Tanish Parkar's younger brother and Mr. Rahul Dhavan are the accused whose names appear in the FIR. Both of them were arrested and have been granted regular bail. 2.

He also submits that there is an ongoing marital dispute within the family. As far as the remand report is concerned, a copy of the same

has been enclosed at page 80 of the present proceedings, wherein details of both accused persons are mentioned. 3.

Mr. Khetre further submits that his client is in the process of disposing of his flat and purchasing another flat away from the area where the victim girl resides. He also mentions that there has been an unfortunate incident in the applicant's family, as his grandmother passed away on 3 March 2025. He, therefore, seeks some time to take instructions from his client's father, which he intends to complete within two weeks from today.

4.

The learned APP submits that although the anticipatory bail applications of accused Tanish Parkar and accused Rahul Dhavan were granted regular bail, the State is in the process of deciding whether it will file an application for cancellation of their bail. 5.

The learned APP further submits that the Investigating Officer is present in Court and is taking steps to collect the mobile phone of accused Rahul Dhavan along with its password. 6.

Mr. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the informant, seeks a short accommodation to take instructions from his client. 7.

In the meantime, the applicant is directed to attend the office of the Investigating Officer on 20 March 2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The applicant is expected to hand over his mobile phone

along with its password to the Investigating Officer. It has been stated today that the mobile phone of the present applicant has already been handed over to the Investigating Officer by the applicant's younger brother, Tanish.

8.

In these circumstances, if the present applicant still possesses any mobile phone, he is required to hand it over to the Investigating Officer along with its password. If he believes that Tanish has always had the mobile phone or still possesses it, then the same must be handed over to the Investigating Officer with its password.

9.

Till the next date of hearing, the applicants shall refrain from contacting the victim, her family members, or her relatives in any manner, including through online messages. Furthermore, they shall not enter the premises of A2, Saket Complex, Rustomjee Urbania, Majiwada, Robodi, Thane. They are also prohibited from going near the school where the victim girl studies and from entering the playing area of the complex.

10.

Stand over to 26 March 2025 under the caption "For Supplementary Board."

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)