SUDHIR ASHOK DAHIFALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. For the reasons stated in criminal application No. 1232 of 2020 seeking permission to assist the learned A.P.P. during the course of hearing of anticipatory bail application No. 253 of 2020, the same is allowed and disposed of.

(2.) The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with crime No. I-699 of 2019 registered with Pathardi police station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 326 , 325 , 324 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 323 , 504 , 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 ,3 / 25 , 4 , 25 and 27 of Arms Act and under Section 37(1) (3) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. Their application bearing Criminal bail M.A. No. 29 of 2020 with similar prayer came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide order dated 12.2.2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R., no specific role has been ascribed to the applicants who are before the Court. Learned counsel submits that there is no overt act on the part of the applicants as per the allegations made in the complaint and it has also not been revealed during the course of investigation. Learned counsel submits that there was almost a free fight between two groups on the same day, time and place and in consequence thereof, co-accused Ganesh has also lodged a complaint in the concerned police station on 18.12.2019 i.e. on the next day of the incident. On the basis of his complaint, crime No. 697 of 2019 came to be registered under Sections 302 , 307 , 324 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 323 , 504 and 506 of I.P.C., under Sections 3 / 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1) (3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act against the informant and nine others. Learned counsel submits that since there was almost a free fight between two groups on account of a dispute in respect of the Gram Panchayat elections and the subsequent meetings of the Gram Panchayat, individual acts are necessary to be considered. So far as the present applicants are concerned, general allegations have been made against them and no overt act is ascribed. Learned counsel submits that applicant No.1 Sudhir is in Military service, applicant No.3 Bhimrao is 75 years of age and applicant No.2 Balu @ Bhagwan is a young person. Their antecedents are clear. The applicants are ready to abide the conditions if imposed by this Court. The applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.