Allowed

Gorakshanath Bhausaheb Aadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jun 2023ABA/509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad considered an anticipatory bail application. Finding no specific allegations against the applicant and noting custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the judge allowed and confirmed the interim protection on terms.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was allowed on the same terms as the interim protection granted on 12/04/2023.

Gorakshanath Bhausaheb Aadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2023

¶3

GORAKSHANATH BHAUSAHEB AADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶4

Mr. M. K. Bhosale, Advocate for the applicant Ms. R. P. Gaur, APP for the respondent/State

¶5

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06^th JUNE, 2023

¶6

P.C. :-

¶7

The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No. 161/2023, registered with MIDC Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Information is lodged by the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board. According to the informant on 19/02/2023 there was disconnection of electric supply of Jeur Sub Station and it was restored by 8.00 pm on same day. It is further alleged that, thereafter on 20/02/2023 the applicant and other villagers entered the office of the informant and shouted slogans against the staff members and obstructed them from discharge of lawful duties. It is also alleged that the electric supply was to various villagers was disconnected by switching off main switch at Sub Station.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant states that there are

¶9

1 of 2

¶10

923.aba509.23.odt

¶11

omnibus allegations against all accused and for want of specific role being attributed to present applicant and also in view of the fact that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, application deserves to be allowed.

¶12

Learned APP opposed the said contention with the submission that the government employees were assaulted and obstructed from discharging their duties and hence it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The perusal of the FIR shows that no specific allegations are made against the present applicant. It is not a case of any assault but as per informant’s own version there was incident of man-handling. There is no specific allegation against the present applicant of committing any overtact including switching of the electricity supply for the villages.

¶14

There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has abused the liberty granted to him by interim protection. Considering overall circumstances and also in view of fact that custodial interrogation of applicant is not necessary, it is a fit case that the interim relief granted on 12/04/2023 deserves to be confirmed. Hence application is allowed on the same terms.

¶15

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶16

ssp

¶17

2 of 2

¶18

923.aba509.23.odt

Gorakshanath Bhausaheb Aadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakshanath Bhausaheb Aadhav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Reshmya Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Premchand Poonamchand Mahtole and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangharsh Suresh Sonwane and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Naim Goru Shaikh Salim Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Khandu Padale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Bahusaheb Zanje Vs the Superintendent of Police, Beed and Another