Dadaso Namdeo Sul v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.07.22 21:26:33 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2007 of 2025 Dadaso Namdeo Sul Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/at. Jamb, Tal: Indapur, Dist. Pune.

... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Sr. P.I. Walchandnagar Police Station, Tal. Indapur, Dist. Pune)

...Respondent

---- Mr Prashant Hagare a/w Mr Krishna Tarde, for the Applicant. Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for Respondent / State.

HC 2151 P V Maner, Walchandnagar Police Station, Pune Rural, is present.

---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 22 July 2025 P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.123 of 2025, registered at Walchandnagar Police Station, Pune (Rural), for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 74, 78, 352, 351(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 17 April 2025, the

co-accused, Abhishek, outraged the modesty of the informant. Following this incident, the informant reported the matter to her family members. In response, they proceeded to the residence of the applicant, who is the father of the said coaccused Abhishek, to confront him regarding the incident. During this visit, the applicant abused and issued threats to the informant's family members. Furthermore, it is claimed that he forcibly snatched a gold chain from the neck of the informant's aunt, Tejaswini.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the present FIR has been filed as a retaliatory measure, being a counterblast to an earlier FIR lodged by the applicant's wife, which names the present informant and his associates as accused persons, pertains to the same incident and was lodged prior in time. He further contends that the specific allegations made against the present applicant are limited to verbal abuse, issuing threats to the family members of informant, and allegedly snatching a gold chain from the neck of the applicant's aunt. The allegations pertaining to outraging the modesty of the informant have not been attributed to the present applicant, but rather have been made solely against the co-accused, Abhishek. In light of this, the learned Counsel argues that, the implication of the present applicant is an act of

malice stemming from the pendency of the earlier FIR filed by his spouse.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant's plea for anticipatory bail. He contends that the applicant has been specifically named in the FIR, and a specific overt act has been attributed to him.

5.

Upon careful perusal of the case records and having considered the rival submissions, it appears that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 17 April 2025 at about 10:30 a.m. However, the FIR in the present matter was lodged only on the following day, at around 8:30 p.m.,indicating a significant delay. Moreover, it appears that the statement of Tejaswini, who is purportedly the victim of the chain-snatching incident, has not been recorded. The statements provided by the other witnesses are verbatim and appear to be mere reproductions of one another. The allegations concerning the offence of outraging the modesty of the informant have been attributed to the co-accused, Abhishek, and not to the present applicant.

6.

In light of the above circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present application. Hence, the

following order.

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicants' arrest in connection with CR No.123 of 2025, registered at Walchandnagar Police Station, Pune (Rural), 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.

(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.)