Vikram @ Vicky Prakash Ujjenwal v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.06.30 21:04:34 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.1610 of 2025 Vikram @ Vicky Prakash Ujjenwal, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/at: Room No.91/92, Bk. No.742, Near Jhulelal Trust School, Ulhasnagar - 421 002, Dist. Thane ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra (Through Ulhasnagar Police Station, Ulhasnagar, Thane) ... Respondents ---- Mr Ganesh Gole, i/b. Ateet Shriodkar, for the applicant. Mr Swapnil S Pednekar, APP, for the respondent/State. API Sachin Patre, Ulhasnagar Police Station, is present. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 30 June 2025.

P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.416 of 2025, registered at Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane, for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 352, 115(2), 189(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(1), 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ('BNS'), 2023. 2.

The First Information Report ('FIR'), was lodged by Raju

Mansingh Labana, who alleged that on 24 April 2025, at about 4:00 p.m., the applicant and his associates assaulted one Pawan and Dhanraj Guher by inflicting blows using fists and kicks. It is alleged that thereafter the applicant and his accomplices began pelting stones. It is also alleged that the applicant assaulted the informant with a knife. In the incident, the informant and his friends sustained injuries.

3.

Mr Ganesh Gole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence. The learned Counsel further submits that the applicant himself lodged an FIR on 24 April 2025, the very date of the alleged incident, against the informant and his associates, in which he specifically alleged that he was assaulted with a knife. The present FIR, on the other hand, was registered only on 26 April 2025, i.e., after a delay of two days, during which time the informant was already in police custody. Furthermore, the learned Counsel submits that in the FIR lodged by the applicant a criminal case was registered against the informant and his accomplices. The informant was then remanded to police custody. While still in custody, the informant proceeded to file the present FIR against the applicant. He further points out that the injuries allegedly

sustained by the informant is simple in nature. The investigation in the present case is complete, and there is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. He draws the attention of this Court to the remand report dated 1 May 2025 to submit that the applicant sustained knife injuries at the hands of the informant and his group.

4.

Mr Swapnil Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, submits that the applicant and his associates were involved in the assault upon the informant and others and also resorted to pelting stones. However, the learned APP candidly acknowledges that the cross FIR lodged by the applicant was filed earlier in time, on the date of the incident itself. He also concedes that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR by the informant, which remains unexplained. Moreover, the learned APP fairly submits that the investigation in the matter is complete, the charge sheet is ready for filing, and there is no requirement for custodial interrogation or recovery from the applicant. He also confirms that the applicant did suffer injuries in the incident. 5.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that there is a significant delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed on 26 April 2025, although the incident occurred on 24 April 2025.

The FIR was filed at a time when the informant was already in police custody pursuant to the cross FIR lodged by the applicant. The injury alleged to have been suffered by the informant appears to be simple. Furthermore, the CCTV footage prima facie corroborates the applicant's contention that the informant and his associates were the aggressors in the incident and the informant assaulted the applicant with a knife. In addition, the investigation has already concluded, the charge sheet is ready to be filed, and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation or recovery.

6.

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a case for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant is made out. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in connection with CR No.416 of 2025, registered at Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when

required by the investigating officer till filing of the charge sheet.

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall not indulge in any activity that may tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

7.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (R.N. Laddha, J.)