Allowed

Mahesh @ Mari Suresh Walhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Aug 2021ABA/379/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The Bench held that mere witness accounts of the applicant running away are insufficient to establish prima facie complicity in the alleged offences punishable under the IPC.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted; interim relief of 08.04.2021 confirmed and made absolute.

Mahesh @ Mari Suresh Walhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

ABA379-21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2021

¶4

Mahesh @ Mari Suresh Walhekar Age 21 years, Occu: Labourer R/o Gajranagar, Ahmednagar

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, ... Respondent Through the Police Inspector, Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar

¶8

Mrs. S. M. Zaware, Advocate for the applicant, Mrs Vaishali S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATE : 24th August, 2021.

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the applicant seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 109/2021 registered with Topkhana Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 435, 436, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

It is alleged that on 02.02.2021, at about 11.15 p.m., when the informant had been to Reliance Petrol Pump, the applicant also came there in a high speed and abused the informant. It is further alleged that on 03.02.2021, at about 3.30 a.m., the informant heard a big noise out side his house. The informant's mother saw through window that a big fire has taken place and Tempo, Scooty, Motorcycle were burning.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

ABA379-21

¶15

The informant was accordingly informed by his mother. The informant, suspecting that it was the applicant behind the incident, lodged the report against him.

¶16

Mrs. S. M. Zaware, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the first information report came to be filed on the ground of suspicion. There is nothing on record to prima facie establish the complicity of the applicant in the alleged incident and in such circumstance, the present application deserve to be allowed.

¶17

Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that there are eye witnesses to the incident who saw the applicant running away from the place of incident. In such circumstance and in view of the fact that investigation is in progress, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶18

Admittedly, the first information report against the present applicant is lodged on the basis of suspicion as earlier an incident had taken place near the petrol pump. As far as the submission of learned A.P.P. that there are eye witnesses to the incident that is to say witnesses had seen running away the applicant from the spot is concerned, in my considered opinion, that itself will not be sufficient unless prima facie it is shown that there is direct evidence involving the present applicant in the alleged offence.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

ABA379-21

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case to allow the present application.

¶22

Hence following order.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

i. The application is allowed.

¶25

ii. Interim relief granted by this Court on 08.04.2021 is confirmed and is made absolute.

¶26

(V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶27

JPC

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Mahesh @ Mari Suresh Walhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh @ Mari Suresh Walhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh @ Bhawdu Walmik Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjivani Shivajirao Sasane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Basavraj Baburao Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantaram Ashok Devtarse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Babanrao Bhagwan Ghorpade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Muktar Abdul Rahim Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra