Sanjay S/O Shivshankar Shukla Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Arni Dist.Yavatmal

1

15aba38.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 38/2022
(Sanjay S/o Shivshankar Shukla Vs. State of Maharashtra)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. Vivek Awchat, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant/State
Mr. T. M. Malnas, Advocate for assisting to prosecution.

¶6

CORAM:- SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

¶7

DATED :- 08.02.2022

¶8

Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.

¶9

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP on behalf of respondent/State.

¶10

3.This is an application for pre-arrest bail in
Crime No. 998/2021 registered with the Police Station
Arni, Dist. Yavatmal for offence punishable under
Sections 354, 451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
alleged against the applicant that one Ms. Babita Pawar
lodged report against the applicant wherein it is alleged
that on 29.12.2021 at about 10.30 a.m., the applicant
entered into the house of the informant and demanded
cell number of her husband. Accordingly, she provided
cell number of her husband to the applicant. Thereafter,
he demanded water. On that demand, the informant told

¶11

Gohane

¶12

2 15aba38.22.odt

¶13

him to take water from the water can. It is alleged that
thereafter, the applicant caught hold the informant’s hand
and pinched the chick. On this incident, the informant
slapped the applicant and lodged report.

¶14

4.On the basis of allegations, learned counsel
for the applicant submits that the applicant and husband
of the informant were having business transactions. As
the applicant is agriculturist, he used to sell the
agricultural produce to the husband of the informant who
later use to sell it in the market. The husband of the
informant agreed to purchase soybean crop from the
applicant. But, the husband of the applicant avoided the
said transaction. Thereafter, the rate of soybean has been
decreased. Therefore, the applicant suffered loss. It is
contended that the applicant and husband of informant
were having transaction of purchasing of crop. So the
theory of the informant that the applicant had been to
her house for taking cell number of husband appears to
be false and bogus. He also contended that the applicant
had given threat to the informant that if he fails to
purchase the soybean crop, he would lodge complaint
against him.

¶15

5.On the other hand, learned APP submits that
the offence is of serious in nature. The applicant has
outraged modesty of the informant by entering into her
house. He submits that there is no evidence on record to

¶16

Gohane

¶17

3 15aba38.22.odt

¶18

show that the applicant and husband of the informant
were having commercial transaction, therefore, the
theory put forth by the applicant is not believable. It is
contended that the investigation is at crucial stage,
therefore, application be rejected.

¶19

6.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP on behalf of State. It appears that the
applicant and the husband of the informant were
knowing each other. It appears from the First
Information Report that the informant was knowing the
appellant therefore, she allowed him to enter into the
house and provided cell phone of her husband, thereafter
also provided water to him. This shows that informant
was acquaintance with the applicant. It appears that
except informant, nobody is eye-witness to the said
incident. The statements of witnesses are already
recorded. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not required. If the applicant is released on
bail with certain condition, the purpose of the
Investigating Officer would be served. Hence, I pass the
following order:-

¶20

(I)Application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶21

(II)In the event of arrest, applicant Sanjay
Shivshankar Shukla in Crime No. 998/2021, he is
ordered to be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount with a

¶22

Gohane

¶23

4 15aba38.22.odt

¶24

condition that to attend Police Station on every Monday,
Wednesday and Friday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00
noon for three weeks.

¶25

(III)The applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶26

 (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J)

¶27

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:2022.02.10 15:16:15 +0530

¶28

Gohane

Sanjay S/O Shivshankar Shukla v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Arni Dist.Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Shivshankar Shukla v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Arni Dist.Yavatmal

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

Kunal @ Kundan S/O Dhammapal @ Sunil Gopnarayan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Midc Tq. and Dist.Akola

Vijaykumar S/O. Vasudev Yergude Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sindewahi Tq. Sindewahi Dist. Chandrapur

Khilesh S/O Bijendra Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur

Swapnil S/O Gopinath Pawar and 3 Others Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Anjangaon Tq. Anjangaon Surji Dist.Amravati

Ravindra S/O Kesharao Mendhe Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal and 2 Others

Prafulla S/O Narendra Watane Vs Uniqu Institute of Higher Learning Private Limited (Directors of the Unique Academy, Pune) and 3