Aves Shaikh Saeed Pinjari and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Applicants have approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.212/2024 registered with Dondaicha Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 74, 125, 189, 190, 191, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 37(i), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the Applicants Mr. Syed submits that this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 has protected the

¶17

2 937(iii).ABA-1996-2024.doc

¶18

Applicants vide interim order with a further direction to attend the police station once in a week. The Applicants have attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation. There are no subsequent events showing any violation of conditions or disturbance of peace at the hands of the present Applicants. The allegations in the FIR are an outcome of the earlier FIR No.210/2025 filed by the police and another FIR No.211/2025 filed by one community against another. The co-accused have been protected by this Court vide interim order and have been regularly attending. There are no reports of any untoward incident occurring in the village thereafter. The Applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. This Court may, therefore, confirm the order dated 04.12.2024 and release them on anticipatory bail.

¶19

As against this, the learned APP vehemently opposes the present application on the ground that the Applicants are involved in the serious offence of rioting and forming an unlawful assembly with a common object to assault the injured persons by means of the stick and other weapons. There are injury certificates on record which corroborate the allegations. The allegations are about disturbance caused to the peace and tranquility of the village as there are allegations of assault by both the communities against each other. The Applicants if released on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and thereby caused prejudice to the prosecution case. The learned APP informs that, though the Applicants were directed to

¶20

3 937(iii).ABA-1996-2024.doc

¶21

attend the police station once a week, they attended on certain dates but failed to do so in some weeks. The charge-sheet is not filed till today. Hence this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The application may therefore be rejected.

¶22

I have gone through the investigation papers. The investigation papers show that the statements of the relevant witnesses have been recorded, the panchnamas prepared, and the injury certificates of the injured witnesses obtained. The investigation, insofar as it concerns the Applicants, appears to have been completed. The learned APP informs that, though the Applicants were directed to attend the police station once a week, they attended on certain dates but failed to do so in some weeks. This statement is disputed by the learned counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Syed. Further custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not warranted from the material in the investigation papers. The apprehension of the learned APP can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon the Applicants. The Applicants are not having any criminal antecedents and as such I am inclined to protect the Applicants in exercise of powers under Section 482 BNS. Hence the following order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

( i ) The application is allowed.

¶25

( ii ) The interim order dated 04.12.2024 is hereby confirmed.

¶26

4 937(iii).ABA-1996-2024.doc

¶27

( iii ) The Applicants shall attend Dondaicha Police Station, District Dhule once in a week till framing of the charge by the learned trial Court.

¶28

( iv ) The Applicants are directed not to threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

( v ) Any single violation, such as committing a similar offence or threatening the witnesses, would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

¶30

( vi ) The application stands disposed of.

¶31

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

¶32

NAJEEB..

Aves Shaikh Saeed Pinjari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aves Shaikh Saeed Pinjari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Union of India through the Sr. Division Engineer (E) vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravikiran Vishnu Sanap vs Maruti Nivrutti Lad and Another

Sanjay Balasaheb Goykar and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Syed Shah Azizul Hasan Manzurull Hasan vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkishor Abhiman Kharbal and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pramilabai Motilal Jiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Another