High Court
Legal Reasoning
1539.2024ABA.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.946 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 539 OF 2024Shirish Hiralal Chaudhari ..APPLICANT -VERSUS-1.State of Maharashtra2.The Superintendent of Police..RESPONDENTS ...Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Anagha Pandit for Talekar and Associates APP for Respondent/State: Mr.R.B. Dhaware ...CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.DATE :4th July, 2024. P.C.:1.The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No.144of 2024 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under sections 342, 364, 452,504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (For short, “IPC”),sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(c) and 135 ofthe Maharashtra Police Act.2.It is the prosecution’s case that informant is labourer andservices of the informant and his family members were engaged byRavi Chaudhari. Accordingly Ravi Chaudhari provided them place inone field of Vijay Chaudhari. The informant, his family members andhis colleague labourers were residing at the place provided by VijayChaudhari. It is alleged that on 2nd January, 2024, when the informantalong with his family members and colleague labourers were working 2539.2024ABA.odtin the field, at that time the applicant along with co-accused had comein the said field and threatened the informant that they shall leave saidplace else they will fracture their hands and legs. It is alleged that atthat time, there was altercation between the applicant and BabaChaudhari. It is alleged that on 3rd February, 2024 around 5:00-5:30,p.m., when the informant was working with the labouers in Godown, atthat time, the applicant and co-accused Shirish Chaudhari along with4-5 persons went there. They told Dinesh Chaudhari to shut down thegodown and stop the work. On that count, they manhandled DineshChaudhari. By seeing the said act, the informant and other labouererswere terrified. It is alleged that on 4th February, 2024, around midnightat 2:30 to 3:00 a.m., when the informant and others were asleep in hisroom, someone knocked the door of room. Informant and his familymembers woke up. At that time, one person by name GauravChaudhari barged in their room. A co-accused Gaurav Chaudhari toldinformant that he will pay the amount to him and his family members toleave the said place and he had brought the vehicle. He asked them toseat in the vehicle, if they refused to seat in the vehicle then he willbreak their hands and legs. Due to his threats, the informant, his familymembers and labourers sat in the said vehicle along with their articles.It is alleged that at that time, 8-10 unknown persons were standing outside of room wielding wooden sticks in their hands. One person washolding small pistol. Informant identified co-accused Janak Jain.
Legal Reasoning
3539.2024ABA.odtThereafter, Janak Jain told one person by name Rahul to take out thevehicle. The said person by name Rahul started the vehicle. When thefirst informant, his family members sat in the vehicle, back door of thesaid vehicle was closed. The said vehicle moved on. The informantwas not aware where they were going. The informant informed aboutthe said incident to Baba Chaudhari on his mobile. It is alleged thataround 4:00 to 4:30 a.m., their vehicle was stopped by the police andpolice took the said vehicle to the police station. On the complaint ofthe first informant, the offence is registered against the applicant andother co-accused and 8-9 unknown persons.3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant thatthe applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime due topolitical rivalry. In the F.I.R., three incidents have been referred by theapplicant. First incident is of month January, 2024. In the said incident,there is no reference of the applicant. The second incident is of 3rdFebruary, 2024. In the said incident, no specific role is attributed to theapplicant. Only the presence of the applicant is mentioned along withco-accused and other 4-5 persons. In the said incident, it is allegedthat all the persons had assaulted Dinesh Chaudhari. Separate F.I.R.is registered about the said incident by Dinesh Chaudhari. Thirdincident is of 4th February, 2024. The first informant has not named theapplicant when his alleged kidnapping was done. He knows theapplicant. As the applicant was not present at the time of incident but 4539.2024ABA.odthe has been falsely implicated in this case. His custodial interrogationis not required, The learned counsel further submitted that earlier someoffences were registered against the applicant, he has been acquittedfrom those offences registered against him.4,It is the contention of the learned APP that the applicant hadgone to the incident spot on the earlier day of the incident. He alongwith co-accused assaulted Dinesh Chaudhari. On the next day, co-accused Gaurav Chaudhari kidnapped the first informant bythreatening him. Police has collected the CDR, which shows that therewas calls between the applicant and accused Gaurav Chaudhari. Itshows the involvement of the applicant in the present crime. Theapplicant is influential person. He has criminal antecedents. Hiscustodial interrogation is required. There is prima facie case againsthim, hence requested to reject the application. 5.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R. andpolice papers produced on record. 6.The allegations against the applicant are about two incidents i.e.dated 3rd February, 2024 and 4th February, 2024. Regarding theincident of 3rd February, 2024, separate F.I.R. is filed by informantDinesh Chaudhari. So the allegations of said offence can not beconsidered in the present offence. In respect of the allegations by thefirst informant of 4th February, 2024, he has not stated about the role ofthe applicant in the act committed against him. It is contention of the 5539.2024ABA.odtlearned APP that the applicant has antecedents. It appears from therecord that except the offences registered on 3rd February, 2024 andthe present crime, the applicant has been acquitted from the offencesregistered against him. Mere producing call records can not be groundto connect the applicant with the present crime. The applicant was notpresent at the spot of incident on 4th February, 2024. Considering theseaspects, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and Ipass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with FIRNo.144 of 2024 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Tq. &Dist. Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under sections 342, 364,452, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 3, 5 and25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(c) and 135 of the MaharashtraPolice Act, the applicant be released on executing personal bond in thesum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, on the followingconditions :-(a)the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as andwhen required by the Investigating Officer. [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] sga