Pawan v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 506(ii)
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 25, 30
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Charge-sheet is fled. It reveals that the incident took place on 29th October, 2021 whereas First Information Report came to be lodged on 2nd November, 2021. No explanation is assigned for delayed First Information Report. In addition to this, applicant is alleged to have…
Judgment
Mr. M.S. Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Badakh, APP for respondent/State. CORAM : M.G. Sewlikar, J. DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2022. PER COURT :
This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicant on bail in connection with Crime No. 0397/2021 registered with Vaizrabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Section 307, 386, 452, 114, 120-B, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/25, 30 of the Arms Act.
Informant is the President of Nanded Crackers Association. It is alleged in the First Information Report that on 21 st October, 2021, at about 12.45 to 1.30 pm, applicant had been to the - 2 - ba1689.21.odt informant and alleged that informant and other members of the association have been selling duplicate fre crackers and China-made fre crackers. He demanded Rs. 40,000/- as ransom for not complaining against the informant.
It is alleged that on 29th October, 2021, in the afternoon, applicant came to the informant and threatened to kill him and started brandishing a revolver. On these allegations, First Information Report came to be lodged on 2nd November, 2021.
Heard Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Badakh, learned APP for the State.
Learned counsel Shri Choudhary submits that applicant had complained against the informant for selling duplicate and China-made fre crackers. He submits that this was the trigger point for lodging false complaint against the applicant. He submits that applicant did not fre from the pistol but was just brandishing it. He submits that at the most, offence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code can be made out. - 3 - ba1689.21.odt
Learned APP Shri Badakh submits that applicant has criminal antecedents. If he is released on bail, he may be directed not to enter Nanded town.
Operative part
Charge-sheet is fled. It reveals that the incident took place on 29th October, 2021 whereas First Information Report came to be lodged on 2nd November, 2021. No explanation is assigned for delayed First Information Report. In addition to this, applicant is alleged to have only brandished the weapon i.e. revolver. There is no allegation in the First Information Report that the applicant fred from the revolver. Having regard to this, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence the following order : ORDER i) Application is allowed. ii) Applicant be released on PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount in connection with Crime No. 0397/2021 registered with Vaizrabad Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Section 307, 386, 452, 114, 120-B, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/25, 30 of the Arms Act, on - 4 - ba1689.21.odt condition that he shall no tamper the prosecution evidence. iii) Application stands disposed of. iv) It is clarifed that the observations made in the above order are restricted to the decision of this application only and the trial Court shall not get influenced by the same and can come to its independent conclusion during trial. ( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 506(ii); Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25, 30.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Jan 2022. The bench was M G SEWLIKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.