Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

3] The applicants have approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.80/2025, registered with Taluka Jalna Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 351(2), 326(g), 324(5), 324(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶33

4] The case noted in the FIR is that the informant’s

¶34

3

¶35

929

¶36

property was set to fire by the unknown persons and the same was covered by CCTV footage. These persons were later on apprehended and were identified by the informant. It is stated that the arrested persons have made statement in which they have implicated the present applicants. The said statements are also shown by the learned APP.

¶37

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not present on the scene, so also, there is pending dispute between the parties qua the property, as such, it is presumed that the applicants have instigated the persons to set the property on fire. He submits that there is no connecting material available to connect the applicants as regards the commission of the offence. He also submits that statement one Mr. Deepak is pointed out that there was some conversation between the applicants to utilize the services of Mr. Kavar for the same offence. However, he has refused to do so. Today also, the statements are produced by the learned APP. Perusal of the same would also indicate that they have given statement exculpatory in nature and involved the present applicants and the same are also recorded at far later point of time.

¶38

5] Considering the material as available on record there is prima-faice nothing to implicate the present applicants directly in the offence except that there is some dispute over the properties between the applicants and the informant.

¶39

4

¶40

929

¶41

6] Considering these aspects of the matter, this court would consider that there is possibility of implication of the applicants in the matter. Considering the same, interim protection can be granted to the applicants.

¶42

7] The learned APP submits that in the event this court intends to grant interim protection then the applicants may be directed to attend the concerned police station and cooperate with the investigation.

¶43

8] In view of the above, in the meanwhile, there shall be interim order in the following terms :-

¶44

A] Till the next date, in the event the applicants are arrested in connection with Crime No.80/2025, registered with Taluka Jalna Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 351(2), 326(g), 324(5), 324(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶45

B] The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on 15.04.2025 and 16.04.2025, between 10:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. and , thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶46

5

¶47

C] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation, including producing all documents in their possession, as may be demanded by the investigating officer.

¶48

D] The applicants shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case and they shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶49

9] Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions may result in this order being cancelled.

¶50

10] List on 28.04.2025.

¶51

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶52

marathe

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Firoj Munawar Mansuri vs State of Maharashtra

Pritam Vinayak Patil and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation Thr. the General Manager, Pune vs Chandrakant Sopan Koli

Ankit Abhay Abad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Saddam Mushtaq Hashmi vs State of Maharashtra

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Narendra Balwan