Jasmitsingh S/O Amarjitsingh Bhatia Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Panchapaoli Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and 2 Others

Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. Pinak Vishwarupe, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. Mr. Vishwajeet Uberoi, Advocate for non-applicant No.3.

¶11

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 09.10.2025

¶12

The original complainant has approached this Court praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the original accused.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and I have gone through the record of the case.

¶14

The First Information Report bearing Crime No.301/2024 dated 30.03.2024 for commission of offences punishable under Section 326, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be

¶15

Prity

¶16

2 / 3 12.apln56.2024

¶17

registered against the original accused/non-applicant Nos.2 & 3 herein.

¶18

In short, it was the case of prosecution that on the day of incident dated 30.03.2024, at about 8:30 a.m., when informant was sitting along with other committee members of Gurudwara in the office, the present nonapplicant Nos.2 & 3 abused the informant so also assaulted informant by means of Kirpan on his head due to which he was referred for medical treatment. On the same day, he was discharged from the hospital i.e. Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur.

¶19

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has fairly stated that the investigation in the matter is completed and charge-sheet is ready.

¶20

With the assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the medico legal certificate which shows that injury sustained by the informant is of simple nature.

¶21

Be that as it may, while granting anticipatory bail Ad-hoc District Judge-5 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has taken into consideration personal rivalry and previous dispute between the parties. The Court in its order dated 18.04.2024, by which, anticipatory bail was

¶22

Prity

¶23

granted to the non-applicant Nos.2 & 3 has also observed that the applicant was discharged on the same day and there was absolutely no possibility of escalation of offence to higher degree. Thus, it can be seen that entire material was properly looked into by the Sessions Court. There is no complaint about threatening of witnesses by the nonapplicant Nos.2 & 3. Since investigation in the crime is completed and accused are cooperating with the investigating machinery so also keeping in the mind the fact that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is reasoned one, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, therefore, the application is dismissed.

¶24

(Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)

¶25

Prity

Jasmitsingh S/O Amarjitsingh Bhatia v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Panchapaoli Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmitsingh S/O Amarjitsingh Bhatia v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Panchapaoli Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

Shrikant Mahadeo Ghate vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Shegaon (Bu) Tq. Warora and Dist. Chandrapur

Kailas Vinayakrao Shirsath and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Mubarak Shaikh Chand and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahadev Datta Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Xyz (Complainont) Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Amravati and Another

The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chandrapur City Dist.Chandrapur Vs Chandresh @ Chotu Deshraj Suryawanshi