Viraj Vishnu Patil (Dhobale) vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Washim City, Tq. Dist. Washim

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and disposed of, accordingly, Shri Kunal S. Dhoble stands discharged from the case.

¶12

ABA 243/2026

¶13

Apprehending arrest the accused, who was not named in the First Information Report has approached this Court.

¶14

The First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No.183/2026 dated 03.02.2026 was registered with Police Station, Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 119(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191, (3), 308(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at the instance of one Dr. Pramod Anil Gangawane against three named persons and other four

¶15

2

¶16

12 aba243.26.odt

¶17

unknown persons. In short, it is alleged in the FIR that the informant was a medical practitioner and was running a multispeciality dental clinic. He was also sarpanch of village Depul and associated with a political party. According to the informant, because of the publicity earned by him the accused started developing jealous attitude towards him. It was alleged that accused used to say that the informant has huge property and therefore he should give share therein.

¶18

According to the FIR, on 03.02.2026 at about 11:30 to 12:00 in noon, accused named in the FIR entered into the clinic of the informant and demanded amount and assaulted him by means of iron rod, stick, fighter and sword. Further, it is alleged that apart from him his attendant by name Gopal Thakare also sustained injuries. According to the informant, when accused persons were assaulting him they were also demanding an amount of 6 lakhs as₹ extortion amount and took cash and gold ornaments from the clinic of informant. As the informant had sustained injury, he was taken to the hospital and thereafter the report, as stated above, came to be lodged.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not present on the spot and as the informant was very well known to the applicant, the applicant could have named him in the FIR if he had remained present on the spot of incident. He further submitted that, all other accused persons had assaulted and

¶20

3

¶21

12 aba243.26.odt

¶22

just because he came in a same car in which the other accused persons came on the spot of incident, the said material would not be sufficient even prima facie, to connect the applicant with the crime.

¶23

The learned APP has has submitted that there are specific allegations against the co-accused that the informant was assaulted by means of sword, iron rod, stick etc.

¶24

With the assistance of the respective counsels, I have gone through the record of the case. The FIR is very specific in which it is stated that the accused came to the clinic of the informant and assaulted by means of the weapons stated above. On perusal of case diary it shows that except stating that the applicant had came with the coaccused in same vehicle, no role is assigned to him. It is not the case that the applicant was present in the clinic where assault took place.

¶25

Considering the allegations made in the FIR and fact that no specific role is assigned to the present applicant, I am inclined to pass the following order:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The application is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

(ii) In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.183/2026 dated 03.02.2026 registered with Police

¶29

4 12 aba243.26.odt

¶30

Station, Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 119(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191, (3), 308(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, applicant – Viraj Vishnu Patil (Dhobale) shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of 55,000/- [Rupees Fifty Five₹ Thousand only] with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 2^nd May & 3^rd May 2026 between 03:00 pm to 06:00 pm.

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶33

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

¶34

(Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)

¶35

Wagh

Viraj Vishnu Patil (Dhobale) v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Washim City, Tq. Dist. Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viraj Vishnu Patil (Dhobale) v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Washim City, Tq. Dist. Washim

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

Mahadeo Ramji Rathod vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Pusad City, Dist. Yavatmal

Baliram Tukaram Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Ansing, Dist. Washim and Anr.

Pushpak S/O Kishore Patle vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Deoli, Dist. Wardha

Rameshwar Ramesh Petle vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Gadgenagar, Amravati City Dist Amravati

Lokesh Madanmohan Yelne vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Tah and Dist. Bhandara

Arbaz Khan Saleem Khan Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Chimur, Tah Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur