CHIKYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.302 of 2023, registered at Upnagar police station, Nashik city, on 25/7/2023. The F.I.R. was lodged U/s.307, 323, 395,504, 506 and 427 of the I.P.C., Ss. 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and U/s.135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Subsequently, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act') were applied on 29/7/2023 and the prior approval for investigation under the MCOC Act was given in respect of Sec. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the MCOC Act.

(2.) Heard Shri. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, learned APP for the State.

(3.) The F.I.R. is lodged by the first informant on 25/7/2023 in respect of the incident which had taken place around midnight between 24/7/2023 to 25/7/2023. The informant was having a four wheeler and he used to park it in front of his house. On 24/7/2023, at around 11.30p.m. to 11.50p.m. the informant returned from his office. He was about to park his car in front of his house. Suddenly, 10 persons came on four motorcycles. They asked the informant to get down. One of them told him that, he was Bashibhai and slapped him. He was wielding a sharp weapon. He told the informant to give money. The informant refused. He tried to run away. Bashibhai told his companion named Rohan and Satyam to finish him. As the informant was trying to run away, one of them caught him. Rs.2200.00 were removed from his pocket at the point of a sharp weapon. They threatened him and told him not to inform the police about Bashibhai's gang. Bashibhai tried to give a blow with the weapon on the informant's head. He evaded that blow and somehow rescued himself. Bashibhai and Roshan broke windscreen of the informant's car. Because of the commotion, the people in the locality gathered there. The accused threatened them and went away. While going away, they damaged other cars. The F.I.R. mentions six cars which were damaged. The first informant was told by others in the locality regarding names of the accused. One of the accused was the present applicant. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged.