Manish @ Vinod Dipak Naik v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.872 OF 2025 Manish @ Vinod Dipak Naik ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
____________________________________ Adv. Mahesh S. Arjun i/b. Adv. Vikrant V. Phatate, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for the State.
Mr. Laxman Patil, PSI Solapur City Police Station present. ____________________________________
CORAM
: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 5 MAY 2025 P.C.:
1.
This is an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.966/2024 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 118(2), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the first informant was himself engaged in the illegal business of selling liquor from his Pan Shop. There exists a dispute between the first informant and the applicant arising out of a monetary transaction. There is also a delay in
lodging the FIR. The investigation is almost complete. Therefore, the custody of the present applicant is not necessary. 3.
The learned APP submits that although the injury, as per the medical certificate, is of a simple nature, the applicant was carrying a weapon and has caused injury to the first informant on his head. The first informant lodged the FIR while he was still admitted in the Civil Hospital. The investigation is ongoing, and the custody of the present applicant is necessary.
4.
I have heard the learned advocate for both the sides and have considered the medical certificate tendered before me. The said medical certificate shows that the injury is simple in nature. 5.
I have been informed that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the current status of the medical certificate of the first informant, the custody of the present applicant does not appear to be necessary. 6.
In such a situation, according to me, a case is made out for granting Anticipatory Bail Application to the applicant.
ORDER
(a) The anticipatory bail application.
(b) In the event of arrest of the Applicant, CR No.966/2024
registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 118(2), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant shall be released on bail furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.30,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount.
(c) The Applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and attend and meet the investigating officer of the concerned police station in the every week on Tuesday between 11:00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m., till the filing of the charge-sheet.
(d) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to victim and to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.
(e) The Applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.
(f) The Applicant and his surety shall provide their respective mobile numbers, e-mail address and documents pertaining to the place of residence.
(g) The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, submits that a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be voluntarily paid as a donation to the Kirtikar Law Library within a period of one week from today.
7.
Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would make the applicants liable to face proceedings for cancellation of anticipatory bail. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants in the present application and that the trial Court shall proceed further, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)