Ramhari Maruti Lad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Applicants have approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.54/2024 registered with Ashti Police Station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Ravikiran Vishnu Sanap, lodged an FIR on 01.02.2025 alleging that on 13.12.2024, he was going to meet his brother-in-law, Ajinath Machindra Vane, resident of Vetalwadi, Taluka Ashti, along with his friend Pandurang Eknath Bhasmare on a motorcycle. At about 01:00 p.m., they reached Ganpati Chowk, Ashti, where they met the informant’s father-in-law, Maruti Nivrutti Lad, and his son, Ramhari Maruti Lad (Applicant Nos. 1 and 2), Sujit Madhukar Hatvar (Applicant No. 3), and one unknown person. They were travelling in a Mahindra Bolero Neo jeep. The Applicants asked the informant and his friend to proceed by Kada road. Accordingly, the informant followed the Bolero jeep. The Applicants stopped the jeep about 200 meters ahead of Jai Mahesh Petrol Pump. There informant’s fatherin-law raised quarrel and started abusing the Informant asking him why Informant was not treating his daughter properly. Thereafter, he assaulted the informant with kicks. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted him with fist blows and slaps. Applicant No.2 took away gold chain of the Informant and Applicant No.1 took away his wrist watch. Informant’s friend Pandurang Bhasmare and Ajinath Vane rescued him. Hence the FIR was registered against the Applicants.

¶28

3 935.ABA-451 & 453-2025.doc

¶29

The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that this Court, vide interim order dated 15.04.2025, was pleased to protect the Applicants by granting ad-interim bail with a condition to attend the Investigating Officer and to cooperate with the investigation. The Applicants have duly attended the police and have cooperated with the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court. The entire investigation is now complete and nothing further remains to be investigated, hence, custodial interrogation of the Applicants may not be necessary.

¶30

. The learned Counsel for the Applicants further submits that the present FIR has been lodged after one month and nineteen days of the incident dated 13.12.2024. Thus, there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It is contended that the FIR has been filed only with an intention to wreak vengeance against the Applicants, who are near relatives of the complainant’s wife. The complainant’s wife, Sheetal, who is the daughter of Applicant Maruti and sister of Applicants Ramhari and Sunil, has already filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Armori, on 10.10.2025 against her husband Ravikiran. Prior to that, proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC were initiated at the behest of Sheetal against her husband Ravikiran Sanap, being FIR No. 48/2025 dated 08.02.2025 registered at Armori Police Station, Dist. Gadchiroli. It is submitted that with an intention to wreak vengeance, the present FIR has been filed. The FIR is a fallout of continuous proceedings between the parties, and the Applicants have been deliberately roped in by the husband of Sheetal with mala fide

¶31

4 935.ABA-451 & 453-2025.doc

¶32

intention. Thus, the Applicants having complied with the conditions imposed vide interim order dated 15.04.2025, the interim protection may be confirmed and the Applicants be released on anticipatory bail.

¶33

As against this, the learned APP Mr. Naik opposed the application on the ground that the Applicants are criminal historysheeters. The learned Assisting Counsel Mr. Khade submitted that he has no instructions from the complainant and prayed for withdrawal of the Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in both Criminal Applications Nos. 1128/2025 and 1129/2025. However, this Court requested the learned Counsel Mr. Khade to assist the Court despite having no instructions on behalf of the complainant. The learned Counsel adopted the arguments of the learned APP and strongly opposed the application. Applicant Ramhari has several crimes registered against him, whereas Applicant Maruti has one crime of rioting and forming an unlawful assembly registered against him, and he has also been convicted in the said offence. There are direct allegations in the FIR pertaining to the assault committed at the behest of all three Applicants. Thus, if the Applicants are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they may commit another cognizable offence and thereby cause prejudice to the prosecution case. Hence, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the Applicants.

¶34

I have gone through the investigation papers and also

¶35

5 935.ABA-451 & 453-2025.doc

¶36

perused the statements recorded by the prosecution during the course of investigation. The investigation appears to be almost complete. The Applicants are reported to have complied with the conditions by attending the police station. The investigation papers do not disclose any injury certificate allegedly caused during the said incident. However, these are prima facie observations made only for the purpose of deciding the present application. Since the investigation appears to be complete, custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. The apprehensions raised by the learned APP as well as the learned Assisting Counsel can be allayed by imposing stringent conditions upon the Applicants. Hence, I am inclined to protect the Applicants.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

( i ) Both the applications are allowed.

¶39

( ii ) The interim order dated 15.04.2025 is hereby confirmed.

¶40

( iii ) The Applicants shall attend Ashti Police Station, District Beed on 13^th 20^th and 27^th of March, 2026 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer till the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶41

( iv ) The Applicants are directed not to tamper with the evidence.

¶42

( v ) The Applicants shall not threaten the complainant or the witnesses.

¶43

( vi ) The Applicants shall attend the trial on each and every date unless so exempted by the trial on emergency conditions.

¶44

( vii ) The Applicants shall submit their Aadhar and PAN Cards to the Investigating Officer and detailed addresses and phone numbers of themselves and two of the near relatives.

¶45

6 935.ABA-451 & 453-2025.doc

¶46

( viii ) A single violation of the aforesaid conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail of the present Applicants on that ground.

¶47

( ix ) With the aforesaid directions, the applications are disposed of.

¶48

( x ) The applications for assisting the prosecution is also disposed of.

¶49

( xi ) The applications seeking police protection filed by the Applicants, are also disposed of with liberty to the Applicants to take appropriate steps.

¶50

MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE

¶51

NAJEEB..

Ramhari Maruti Lad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramhari Maruti Lad and Another 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

Pandurang Vithal Vaidya vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Subhash Suryabhan Thorat vs Suryabhan Hari Thorat (Died) and Ors.

Gopal Rangnath Devare vs the Police Inspector

Deepak Alias Dipak Achyutrao Raut vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak Alias Jyuli Rajendra Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Nivrutti Lad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another