Govind Hanumanta Kanal v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.08.02 19:50:24 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Chitra Sonawane 906-aba-2144-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.2144 of 2025 Govind Hanumanta Kanal Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Service, R/at- Mahalaxmi Housing Society, Behind Satsang Bhavan, Forest Park, Lohegao, Dist. Pune-411047 ... Applicant. Vs.

The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of PI Vimantal Police Station, Pune, vide CR No.127/2025) ... Respondent.

--- Mr Vivek Arote i/by Akshay Dingale for the applicant. Mr SS Pednekar, APP a/w Mr Shahaji Shinde, Panel 'B' Counsel for the respondent/State.

API Sachin Dhamane, Vimantal Police Station, Pune city. --- Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.

Date : 1 August 2025.

P.C. :

.

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.127 of 2025, registered at Vimantal Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Page No. 1 of 4

Chitra Sonawane 906-aba-2144-25.doc Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2.

The prosecution alleges that on 8 March 2025, the applicant, along with the co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the informant and his family members using punches, kicks, stones, and an iron rod. They also damaged the informant's property.

3.

Mr Vivek Arote, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, asserting the applicant's innocence, contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that the informant and his associates were aggressors in the incident, and the applicant's wife has lodged a counter-FIR against them. The weapon used in the crime has already been recovered, and with the investigation now complete, the applicant's custody is unwarranted. The learned Counsel further submits that the applicant is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court if granted pre-arrest bail.

4.

Mr SS Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Page No. 2 of 4

Chitra Sonawane 906-aba-2144-25.doc Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant's request for pre-arrest bail and contends that the offence is of a serious nature. There are specific allegations of assault against the applicant. The learned APP, on instructions, fairly acknowledges that the investigation is almost complete, the weapon used in the crime has been recovered, and nothing further remains to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. However, the learned APP raises concerns about potential evidence tampering and witness influence if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail. 5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records. It appears that the alleged incident on 8 March 2025 and the present FIR was lodged on 9 March 2025. The applicant's wife has also registered a cross-FIR against the informant and his associates. Furthermore, the weapon allegedly used in the crime has been recovered. The learned APP fairly concedes that the investigation is almost complete, and nothing further remains to be recovered or discovered at the applicant's behest. Additionally, the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Page No. 3 of 4

Chitra Sonawane 906-aba-2144-25.doc applicant. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in CR No.127 of 2025, registered at Vimantal Police Station, Pune, 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, himself or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the investigating officer.

6.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. [R. N. Laddha, J.] Page No. 4 of 4