VAIJANATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The brother of the victim injured Vaijanath (complainant) has urged to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge-I, Jalna, in C.M.P. Bail No.932/2010. dt.22.12.2010, granted in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3 for the offense punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Elaborate submissions are advanced by Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned Counsel for the complainant, pointing to the role, mental set up of respondent no.2 Ghansham in dealing with either the brother of the complainant or with the Government officials. It is alleged, in the year 2008, Inspector of Land Records, Taluka Jalna, was threatened by respondent no.2 to face dire consequence and even to seek redressal before the authorities dealing with Anti Corruption cases. Said Inspector, ultimately, approached the Superintendent of Police, Jalna, by putting his grievance against respondent no.2 on 21.11.2008.

(3.) It is informed that a FIR vide Crime No.I-225/2006, dt. 19.9.2006 was filed by the victim Sadanand against respondent no.2 for the offense under Section 420 read witli Section 34 of IPC. Inspite of such prosecution. in vogue, in the application moved before learned Sessions Judge at Jalna, a sweeping statement is made in paragraph no.8. which reads as under: