Sunil Bhima Chavan v. State Of Maharashtra

906-aba-3161-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3161 OF 2025 Sunil B. Chavan ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent.

..............

Ms Jyoti Shahu for the Applicant.

Mrs. A.A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State. PI Swati Chandrakant Jagtap, Mankhurd Police Station is present. ..............

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

19.11.2025.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 459 of 2025 registered at Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 142, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.

According to the prosecution, there was dispute between the applicant and first informant on account of certain financial transactions. It is alleged that thus on the date of alleged incident which took place on 7th September 2025, the present applicant and other co-accused assaulted the first informant with a cement block and attempted to commit his murder.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged assault by cement block is attributed to the co-accused Ganesh Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

906-aba-3161-25.doc Matre. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered at the instance of present applicant and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

6.

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State submits that by order dated 15th August 2024, the applicant was externed for the period of 18 months and the present applicant has committed the crime in question when the said externment order was in force. Learned APP submits that the applicant is involved in three more crimes. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has breached the externment order due to unavoidable circumstances, as the wife of the applicant was seriously ill. In that case the applicant should have sought permission by invoking the appropriate remedies available to him under the law. The applicant is involved in three more crimes. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected. [N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2