DARSHAN UTTAM DONDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest under Section 307, 326, 323, 504, 506, 141, 144, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered vide Crime No.I-228 of 2021 with Police Station Ambad.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 26th July 2021 at about 10.15 p.m. while the informant along with his friends was walking down, on account of previous dispute, applicant /accused and other accused confronted the informant and his friends. The prosecution alleges that accused Sunny Bacchav, Prashik Adangale and Akshay Gavanje took out a weapon like knife from their waist and assaulted the informant. When the informant 's friends namely Devchand Shriram Kedare and Santosh Suresh Mandali came to his rescue, accused Prashik Adangale, Monty Dalavi and Roshan Jadhav exhorted that all of them should be beaten. It is further alleged that the applicant/accused and accused Prashik Adangale then gave blows of sickle on the abdomen, chest and thigh of Shriram Kedare. Sunny Bacchav assaulted Santosh Mandali on his chest and back by means of a sickle. The present applicant then gave a blow of sickle on the person of the informant but the said blow was resisted by the informant by his right hand and thus suffered injury on his right hand finger. Later on informant lodged the report.

(3.) Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that on the day of the incident the applicant himself was in an injured condition and had suffered fracture on his left leg and thus was not in a position to make any movement without the aid of a walker. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the statement of the concerned Medical Officer recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and as also the photographs filed on record. According to the learned counsel, the applicant is ready to co-operate the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation and there being no necessity of custodial interrogation, the interim relief granted by this Court should be confirmed.