Allowed

Anil Uttam Gangawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Dec 2024ABA/805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for anticipatory bail. The court allowed the application to confirm interim relief due to allegations of a counter-blast report and the delayed filing of the informant's FIR, while the first instance order dated 15/05/2024 was already in place.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail application allowed confirming the earlier interim order dated 15/05/2024.

Anil Uttam Gangawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:30450

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

947 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 805 OF 2024

¶4

ANIL UTTAM GANGAWANE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B. A. Shinde, APP for the respondent/State Ms. K. A. Sarin, Advocate for respondent no.3 (appointed)

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 146/2024, registered with Kopargaon Rural Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

Informant is a lady who claims that the incident occurred on 13/04/2024 at 12.30 pm in which present applicant had outraged her modesty. There are other allegations made against him in the said report.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact the present report lodged by the informant is a counter blast to the report lodged by the applicant against the family members of the informant herein. He drew attention of the Court to the FIR dated 13/04/2024 in

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

947.aba805.24.odt

¶14

Crime No. 143 of 2024 to support his submission.

¶15

Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the application by contending that the report lodged by the applicant is in anticipation of the report to be lodged by the informant herein. The learned APP has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of witness which claim occurrence of such incident.

¶16

Record indicates that the incident has allegedly occurred at 12.30 pm on 13/04/2024 whereas the report is lodged after 12 hours. Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the informant that since the husband of the informant was not at home, the report was not lodged immediately, however, the first information report does not indicate any such reason for not lodging the same forthwith. Since, there is a possibility of present report being lodged by way of a counter blast to the report lodged by the applicant, it is a fit case to allow application by confirming interim relief. Hence, application is allowed in terms of interim order dated 15/05/2024.

¶17

Fees of the appointed counsel is quantified Rs. 10,000/- and it is to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

ssp

2 of 2

947.aba805.24.odt

Anil Uttam Gangawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Uttam Gangawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shushila Rajendra Londhe Vs Agricultural College Dhule through Its Principal and Another

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shankar Babarao Jawanjal Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Nanded Region and Others

Aniket Ramesh Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Sachin Shivaj Varpe Vs Pranjal Sachin Varpe Under Guardian of Mother Varsha Sachin Varpe and Others

Sominath Bajirao Wabale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another