Dismissed¶30

Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Jan 2025ABA/244/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) dismisses anticipatory bail application of Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi under S. 482 BNSS 2023 in C.R. No. 527 of 2023 (Ss. 307/326 etc. IPC), Nandgaon Police Station, Dist. Nashik; cross-FIR by applicant held prima facie afterthought; prior Sessions Court rejections noted; decided 05-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

No case has been made out for granting any protective order in favour of the Applicant. ¶29

Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:6265

¶2

17-ABA-244-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2025

¶5

Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi ...Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Adv. Iraa Dube Patil i/b Jay & Co. for the Applicant Adv. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for the State. Mr. Santosh Kadu Bahakar, PSI, Nandgaon Rural Police Station

¶7

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATED : 5^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

The Applicant has filed the present Application under

¶10

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for apprehending his arrest in C. R. No. 527 of 2023 registered with Nandgaon Police Station, Dist- Nashik for the offences punishable under Section 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶11

2 It is the case of the prosecution in the FIR that the present applicant who was holding a stick along with the other accused, assaulted the victim. The Applicant thereafter inflicted a

Harish

17-ABA-244-2025.doc

blow of stone on the mandible of victim Digambar Karbhari and thereby causing fracture injury to the victim. The victim was thereafter bleeding and was taken to hospital. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged against all the accused. There are total five accused out of which 4 accused have appeared before the trial Court and have secured their bail. Chargesheet has already been filed.

¶16

Ms. Iraa Dube Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offences. Applicant is a senior citizen 69 years of age and his occupation is farming. He has earlier filed one bail application before the Trial Court bearing Bail Application No. 54 of 2024 at Sessions Court Malegaon. However, the said Bail Application was rejected. Thereafter fresh anticipatory bail application was filed by the Applicant before the Session Court. Even the second anticipatory bail Application was rejected by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the Applicant. The arrest of the Applicant will harm his reputation and his personal life. The family of the Applicant have deep roots in the society. Since the co-accused have already been

Harish

17-ABA-244-2025.doc

released, the present anticipatory bail application also requires to be allowed with appropriate conditions.

¶21

The learned APP appearing for the Respondents submits that by a well reasoned order the Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of the Applicant. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded in the present proceeding wherein, the contents of the FIR has been narrated. Nature of allegations in the FIR are of serious in nature. It is also alleged that applicant with co-accused have assaulted the informant with stick

¶22

& Koyta. The weapon (Koyta) used during the commission of offence is yet to be recovered. Given the gravity of the offence, custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of weapon used (Koyta).

¶23

In the FIR, the role of the present Applicant has been specifically mentioned. The FIR No. 0527/2023 wherein, the Applicant has been shown as Accused No. 1 was filed on 15.11.2023 at 2:15pm in the afternoon. Whereas, the FIR lodged by the present Applicant bearing No.0530/2023 at midnight after 12.00 am i.e. 00.37 hrs., which is much later than the Applicant which prima facie looks to be afterthought.

Harish

17-ABA-244-2025.doc

The medical report of the informant at page 90 shows that the object used for causing injury is a sharp object and type of injury is ‘Laceration wond on head’

¶28

Both the parties have filed FIR against each other. The anticipatory bail application preferred by the informant & four others have been rejected.

¶29

After going through the FIR and after considering the submissions, in my opinion, no case has been made out for granting any protective order in favour of the Applicant.

¶30

In view of the same, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶31

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶32

Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/02/2025 20:10:34

¶33

¶34

Harish

Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Ganpat Suryavanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandip Muktaji Bansode vs State of Maharashtra

Anand Vasant Kshirsagar vs the State of Maharashtra

Haider Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Narsingh Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Pravin Viram Satra vs State of Maharashtra

D. J. Malpani vs Kgepl Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.