2024:BHC-AUG:10439
1
906.Cri.ABA-687-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 687 OF 2024
1. KAILAS S/O MAHADEV AVAAD
2. MAHADEV S/O BHIVAJI AVAAD
3. KAIKAI W/O MAHADEV AVAAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kanade Angad Lala
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. Amar V. Lavte
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
{ VACATION COURT }
DATE : 31st MAY 2024.
Per Court :
. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP
for respondents/State.
2. When I express disinclination to grant any relief to
applicant no.1/Kailas Mahadev Avaad, learned Counsel for the
applicants sought permission to withdraw application to his
extent. Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn to
the extent of applicant no.1.
3. Applicants are apprehending their arrest in furtherance of
offence bearing Crime No.0040/2024 registered with Dindurd
Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under
Sections 326, 327, 504, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2
906.Cri.ABA-687-2024.doc
4. It is alleged that applicant no.1/Kailas assaulted informant
with axe and applicant no.2/Mahadev with iron rod on the
shoulder on 16.03.2024. It is further alleged that applicant no.3/
Kaikai @ Kaushalyabai snatched golden locket and cash of
Rs.3000/-. The controversy which triggered into F.I.R. is that the
application is made on 26.12.2023 by applicant no.1 for cleaning
garbage from the adjoining land. While they were cleaning
dumped garbage, land owner came there and interrupted the
work.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant
no.2 is 80 years and applicant no.3 is 75 years old. The
allegations are not serious in nature and premeditated. He would
further submit that present FIR is a counterblast to FIR
No.39/2024 lodged on 16.03.2024 by applicant no.1 against
informant and others. The accused in that offence have been
granted pre-arrest protection.
6. Learned APP repels the submissions of learned Counsel for
the applicant by producing on record the papers. It is being
pointed out that one Machchindra is the eye-witness to the
incident. Further witnesses Onkar and Mahesh corroborate FIR.
They are independent witnesses. There is incriminating role
played by applicant no.2 and 3. He would point out injury
certificate of a private hospital indicating grievous injury of
dislocation of right shoulder of the informant.
3
906.Cri.ABA-687-2024.doc
7. I have considered both the First Information Reports,
statements and the medical certificate. Applicant no.1 is said to
have inflicted injury by axe. Applicant no.2 has used iron rod for
causing dislocation of right shoulder of the informant. So far as
applicant no.3 is concerned, there is nothing incriminating
except her presence at the instance. Considering her age, she is
entitled for pre-arrest protection.
8. The statement of Machchindra discloses that applicant no.2
inflicted injury by iron rod on the shoulder. Witnesses Onkar and
Mahesh are not the eye-witnesses giving direct account of the
incident in question, albeit independent witnesses. Injury
inflicted by the applicant no.2 is grievous in nature but it is on
the right shoulder. Applicant no.2 is 80 years old. Prima facie,
incident in question cannot be said to be premeditated one. I am
therefore inclined to allow application for applicant no.2 and 3.
9.(i) Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed to the extent of
Applicant No.2/Mahadev and Applicant No.3/Kaikai.
(ii) In the event of their arrest in furtherance of offence
bearing Crime No.0040/ 2024 registered with Dindurd Police
Station, District Beed, Applicant No.2/Mahadev and Applicant
No.3/Kaikai shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of
Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands) each with one solvent
surety in the like amount.
4
906.Cri.ABA-687-2024.doc
(iii) They shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and
report to the concerned police station as and when called by the
Investigation Officer.
SHAILESH P. BRAHME
JUDGE
NaJeeb...