Arjun Ganesh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.584 of 2024, registered at Chikalthana Police Station, district Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

The learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out the report in which it is averred that on 5^th December 2024, after 12:00 midnight, the applicant along with two co-accused entered the hotel of the informant. The informant received a phone call at about 3:44 a.m. from one of his employees, namely Abad, informing him that three persons had entered the hotel and were forcefully demanding food. While having their meal, they consumed liquor brought by them and thereafter again

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

(( 2 )) 932 BA NO. 1210 OF 2025

¶14

demanded food. Upon receiving this information, the informant went to the hotel and noticed empty liquor bottles on the table. The three persons were quarreling with the waiters. The informant introduced himself as the Manager of the hotel and informed them that the hotel was closed and directed them to go. However, the accused persons paid the bill for the earlier meal and demanded a bottle of Sprite. When waiter Abad asked them to pay for the Sprite, they refused and started to quarrel with the waiters of the hotel. At that time, one of the accused approached the informant and threatened him. The informant tried to pacify them, but as they were under the influence of liquor, they did not respond and instead started assaulting him. Co-accused Abhijit then assaulted the informant with a knife. The informant rushed towards the counter at that time the waiters intervened and requested the accused not to assault. At that time, two other persons entered the hotel and inquired whether the hotel was open for parcel orders. They witnessed the ongoing incident. One of them saw co-accused Abhijit was proceeding towards him with a knife. When the victim Santosh Peddi tried to intervene and requested them not to quarrel, accused No.1 Abhijit all of a sudden assaulted him on his chest with the knife. Thereafter, the three accused persons fled in a Skoda Fabia car bearing registration No. MH-12FY-4194 towards Cambridge Square, Aurangabad. The victim Santosh Peddi, who had sustained serious injuries, became unconscious and was

¶15

2 of 4

¶16

(( 3 )) 932 BA NO. 1210 OF 2025

¶17

immediately taken to the hospital, where during the treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the report was lodged.

¶18

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. Though he was present at the time of the incident, he was not provoking anyone but was merely present there. Learned advocate pointed out the CCTV footage, which shows that the applicant was only present there. It is submitted that considering the role of the applicant, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶19

Learned APP for the State strongly opposes the application and points out that CCTV footage in which the applicant is turning near the counter of the hotel. His presence at the time of the incident reveals that he is involved in the said crime. He states that the applicant is involved in a serious crime of murder. He has criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays to reject the application.

¶20

Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and statements of witnesses. The details of CCTV footage pointed out by learned advocate for the applicant shows that the applicant was present at the spot of incident. The applicant was not holding the knife and he had not assaulted, either the informant or Santosh Raju Peddi, who died by the assault of co-accused. The applicant has criminal antecedents, however, he has been acquitted in all four cases. The applicant has roots in the society. The trial will take

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

(( 4 )) 932 BA NO. 1210 OF 2025

¶23

long period.

¶24

Considering all these reasons and change in circumstance, the application deserves to be allowed on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:

¶25

:: ORDER ::

¶26

i. The application is allowed.

¶27

ii. The applicant, in connection with Crime No.584 of 2024, registered at Chikalthana Police Station, district Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 103(1) and 3(5) of

¶28

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount on following conditions;-

¶29

a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶30

b. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses, in any manner.

¶31

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]

¶32

HRJadhav

¶33

4 of 4

Arjun Ganesh Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Ganesh Yadav 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

Similar cases

Ashfiyan Khalil Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sachin Rajendra Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ananda Narayan Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rumalya Checharya Alias Shesarya Pawra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajsing Alias Kuldipsing Shamsing Kalani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Gokul Yadav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra