PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant apprehending arrest in Crime No.262, registered with Ahemadpur Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this application seeking pre-arrest bail.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP representing the respondent/State. Perused the papers of investigation and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahemadpur, rejecting the application seeking pre-arrest bail.

(3.) In brief, it is contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the complaint filed by the informant is false and frivolous and nothing but gross abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the applicant and the husband of the informant had entered into an agreement to allow the husband of the informant to cultivate the land on crop share basis. A written agreement to that effect executed in the month of May, 2020. The informant and her husband were not willing to act as per the agreement. They were claiming money from the applicant without the work being carried out in terms of agreement. The applicant shown willingness to pay the amount to the extent the work carried out by them. As a well planned conspiracy hatched by them, the informant and her husband came to his house and created drama of consumption of poisonous substance and lodged false complaint alleging therein that when the informant and her husband demanded money of work done, the applicant outraged her modesty as well as forcibly administered poisonous substance i.e. insecticide to the informant. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of various persons. Except the informant and few persons close to her, no other independent person supported the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the applicant is a respectable person and agriculturist by profession. He has no past record of indulging into criminal activities. The arrest of the applicant would cause harassment to him for no offence committed on his part. By referring the facts of case, the learned Counsel submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant would not hamper on-going investigation. It is submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide any conditions that may be imposed in the event of grant of protection under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.