ANKUSH MANSING PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been filed for getting anticipatory bail as both the applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.165/2020 dated 12.07.2020 registered with Talwada Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed for the offence punishable under Section 307, 341, 327, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.S. Deshmukh instructed by Mr. D.R. Deshmukh for applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1027 of 2020, learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Thorat for applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1037 of 2020 and learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for State in both applications.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant by learned Senior Counsel that perusal of the First Information Report would show the name of one Ranjit Ankush Pawar, who is the son of applicant in A.B.A. No.1027 of 2020. However, it is stated that he was along with four unknown persons. There is ample evidence to show that the informant was knowing the present applicant even since prior to the date of incident. If he was already knowing the present applicant then why he should mention them as unknown persons. This shows the false implication of the present applicant. In fact, co-accused Ranjit was arrested and he has been released on regular bail. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of interrogation co-accused has revealed the name of the present applicant. Such disclosure by co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. Further, it has also come before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that though the informant contended that he was assaulted by sword by co-accused and others had assaulted him by scythe and hammer, yet, what has been discovered is wooden log and iron rod (yks[kaMh f[kG). Further, the scythe blows appears to be given on legs, and therefore, it cannot be stated that anybody had any intention to kill the informant. The physical custody of the present applicant is absolutely not required. He, therefore, prayed for anticipatory bail.