..1..
MHNS010022392022
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 556 OF 2022
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chandrakala Rajaram Shiral,
Age 40 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Ashwini Rajaram Shiral,
Age 28 yrs, Occ: Education
Sachin Rajaram Shiral
Age 30 yrs, Occ: Service
Kedu Rajaram Shiral
Age 32 yrs, Occ: Agri.
Ravina Somnath Shiral
All r/o. Nalegaon, Tal. Dindori,
Dist. Nashik.
… Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Dindori Police Station,
Tal Dindori Dist. Nashik.
(CR No. 138/2022)
… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.
The applicants are having apprehension that they may be
arrested in connection with crime No.138/2022 of Dindori Police
station for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149,
326, 324, 326, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Hence, they are seeking directions
for grant of bail in the event of their arrest in the said crime in view of
Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, on relevant day i.e.
30/04/2022 at about 9.15 p.m. when the informant, his mother
Janabai, brother Pravin and friend Bunty were sitting in front of his
..2..
house at that time the present applicant no.1 and 2 had been there and
due to previous dispute between them they started abusing them. When
they were trying to convince them they both assaulted his mother
Janabai by kick and fist blows. At that time other accused Rajaram and
Sachin Shiral who is applicant no.3 had been there who were armed
with iron rods. Whereas applicant no.4 alongwith accused Somnath and
Bharat had been there and they were armed with wooden sticks. The
accused Rajaram assaulted his mother Janabai with iron rod on her
head and caused her severe injury so when his brother Pravin had been
to save their mother the present applicant no.3 Sachin assaulted him
with iron road on his head and back. When the informant and his friend
were trying to rescue them all abused and assaulted them and ran away
from the said place. Hence, the report.
3.
The applicants have filed application seeking anticipatory
bail on the ground that they are falsely implicated in the offence. The
other coaccused Rajaram, Saomanath and Bharat are already released
on bail by the JMFC Dindori. The name of applicant no.5 is not stated in
the FIR and so the same shows that her name is falsely implicated.
There is delay in lodging the FIR and from the same it can be inferred
that they are falsely implicated in this offence. The applicants no.1 , 2
and 5 are woman and are not concerned with the offence. Applicant
no.2 is taking education whereas no. 3 and 4 are in service. Their
custodial interrogation is not essential. So they have prayed that they
be released on anticipatory bail.
4.
The Ld. APP. has filed pursis vide Exh.6 and the
Investigation Officer has filed his say vide Exh.7 and has contested this
..3..
application stating that the offence is serious in nature. The clothes
worn by the applicants at the time of the offlence and weapons used in
the offence are yet to be recovered. The statements of informant and
injured witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded.
Investigation is at initial stage. If the applicants are released on bail they
are likely to pressurize the witnesses. The custodial interrogation of the
applicants is necessary for investigation.
So it is prayed that the
application be rejected.
5.
Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Shinde for applicants. He argued that
there is delay of 2 days in lodging the report though police station is at
a distance of 16 Kms. from the spot where the incident occurred. So it
shows that they are falsely implicated in this case due to some previous
dispute of land between the parties. The applicants are not involved in
the offence. The other coaccused are already released on bail. So it is
argued that as custodial interrogation of these applicants is not
necessary they be released on bail.
Per contra, Ld. APP Smt. Patil
argued that recovery of the weapons is yet to be made. The informant
and applicants are resident of same village and so if they are released
on bail there is likelihood that they might pressurize the witnesses.
Their custodial interrogation is essential for further investigation. So,
application be rejected.
6.
Considered the arguments. Gone through the FIR. From the
FIR it can be seen that prior to the incident there was some dispute
between the parties. Lateron, because of their previous dispute on
relevant day the present applicant nos.1 and 2 had been to the house of
informant and have abused and assaulted his mother Janabai by kick
..4..
and fist blows Whereas applicant no.3 was armed with iron rod and
applicant no.4 was armed with wooden sticks and they have assaulted
Pravin who is the brother of informant on his head, hands and back.
They have assaulted the informant and his friend. So it can be seen that
there is direct evidence available against the present applicants which
prima facie shows their involvement in the offence.
7.
The Ld. Advocate for applicants has argued that as the
other coaccused are released on bail, these applicants be also released
on bail. However, it pertinent to note that the other coaccused no. 3, 6
and 7 were arrested in this crime and after their custodial interrogation
they were remanded to MCR and subsequently they are released on
bail. So only on the said ground present applicant cannot seek
anticipatory bail but it is essential to see that their custodial
interrogation is essential.
8.
As aforestated there are direct allegations against the
present applicants excluding applicant no.5 in the FIR. However,
lateron during investigation the name of applicant no.5 has come on
record. There is some delay in lodging the FIR but at this initial stage it
is not essential to consider the same nor because of the same it can be
said at this stage that crime is falsely registered. Whereas, the weapons
such as stick iron rod allegedly used by the present applicants in the
offence is yet to be recovered from them. Also the clothes worn by
them during the commission of offence are also yet to be recovered. So
for the same their custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence,
considering the fact the investigation is at threshold and the custodial
interrogation of applicants is necessary, this application cannot be
..5..
considered. Hence, for the aforestated reason I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR SHINDE
Date:
SHINDE
2022.06.03
17:54:03 +0530
Date: 03/06/2022
Nashik.
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.