Dismissed¶24

Nitin Sampat Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Criminal – Bail – Regular bail refused

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025BA/137/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail Application No.137 of 2025, High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, decided 13.03.2025 by Abhay S. Waghwase, J.; applicant Nitin Sampat Gaikwad sought regular bail in Crime No.0219 of 2024 (Bidkin Police Station) under Sections 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC for alleged hammer assault on Dnyaneshwar (brother of informant Maroti Bande) causing grievous injuries; charge sheet filed August 2024, charge framed; bail application rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Despite the charge sheet having been filed, the court is not inclined to grant regular bail at this stage, considering the articles used, site of injury, statement of the injured and the background in which the incident took place. ¶23

Nitin Sampat Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:7313

¶2

BA.137.2025

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2025

¶6

Nitin S/o. Sampat Gaikwad, Age : 29 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Padali, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar (Aurangabad) … Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

Mr. B. P. Pande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 11.03.2025 Pronounced on : 13.03.2025.

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Applicant seeks grant of regular bail on account of his

¶13

arrest in Crime No.0219 of 2024 registered at Bidkin Police Station, District Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of IPC.

¶14

Pointing to the date of arrest as 17.06.2024, it is submitted that, FIR is of 23.05.2024 and occurrence is of 22.05.2024. Therefore, apparently there is delayed FIR. That, allegations against

¶15

BA.137.2025

¶16

-2-

¶17

present applicant are of hitting hammer on head by way of single blow. That, hammer is already seized. That, investigation is also over. He pointed out that, surprisingly, here, spot panchanama is drawn prior to the occurrence. That, there are several shortfalls. Thus, according to leaned counsel, when charge sheet is already filed in August 2024 itself and when no further recovery or discovery is shown and as applicant is ready to abide all and any conditions imposed by this court, learned counsel seeks grant of bail.

¶18

Learned APP opposed by pointing out that there is assault by dangerous weapon, like hammer. Learned APP took this court through the injury certificate and submitted that there are more than one injuries and out of five injuries, four are grievous. That, hammer which is seized from the spot carried blood stains. Statements under sections 161 and 164 are consistent. That, according to learned APP, charge is already framed, and therefore, there is possibility of early commencement of trial and its conclusion too and for all above reasons, bail application is opposed.

¶19

Heard. Perused the FIR dated 23.05.2024 at the instance of one Maroti Bande, who reported Bidkin police that around 5:30 p.m., his brother Dnyaneshwar took motorcycle for repairs to the

¶20

BA.137.2025

¶21

-3-

¶22

garage of one Jamil Shaikh. Around 6:00 p.m., he got phone call from Appasaheb informing assault on his brother by Nitin Sampat Gaikwad i.e. present applicant and Dilip Gaikwad. When informant reached said spot, he found his brother lying in injured condition. Informant claims that when applicant and non applicant Dilip were asked, they allegedly said that, there was accusations against Dnyneshwar for committing murder, but still he is enlarged on bail and hence he was assaulted. Injury certificate is placed on record. Injured has suffered CLW on frontal prominent forehead, blunt trauma on head, compound fracture to both hands and CLW to leg. Injury nos.1, 3 and 5 are certified to be grievous. There is statement of injured.

¶23

Therefore, with such allegations, considering the articles used, site of injury, statement of injured, the background in which incident took place, though charge sheet is filed, this court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

¶24

The applications stands rejected.

¶25

Tandale

¶26

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

Nitin Sampat Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Sampat Gaikwad 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

Similar cases

Dnyaneshwar Raghunath Surase and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajabhau Narayan Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sk. Rahim S/O Sk. Lal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhimraj Sheshmal Bhansali Vs Nandkishore @ Nandram Satvaji Shame

Pravin Vishnu Jagtap Vs Nandkishore @ Nandram Satvaji Shame

Dhananjay @ Dhanu @ Vedant Dnyaneshwar Doijad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another