Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 828 (BOM)

Mayur Balasaheb Somvanshi v. State of Maharashtra

2025-07-01

ADVAIT M.SETHNA

body2025
JUDGMENT : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. 1. The Applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ”) as he apprehends his arrest. 2. These proceedings relate to CR No.0314 of 2024. The FIR has been lodged on 9 March 2024 at 16.08 hours by the Tophkhana Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar. The Sections invoked are 326, 307 (subsequently added), 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 (subsequently added), 504, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 4 /24 of the ARMS ACT . There are 7 accused persons, the present Applicant being disclosed as accused No.1. Case in the FIR:- 3. The complainant Ajay Karpe, aged 24 years lodged the report stating that his friend Vaibhav Sampat Baraskar was having a tea center. On 8 March 2024 at about 3.00 p.m., the present Applicant and 5 to 6 persons including the co-accused came inside the said premises and the other persons waited outside. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 i.e. Omkar Thombre, Abhi Tirandas and Tahir Shaikh came inside the premises and the other persons waited outside. The accused Nos.2 and 3 started saying how “dare they touch their bhai”. They threatening that the complainant should not be kept alive along with his friend. The complainant reported that the present Applicant gave a blow of iron koyata on the head of the complainant. The complainant dodged the blow which fell on his right shoulder and the Applicant then gave a blow to the right knee of the complainant, because of which the latter fail down. On that, accused Nos.3 and 4 followed the complainant including accused Nos.5, 6 and 7, who stated that the complainant should not be left alive and should be killed. However, as and when people gathered outside the canteen, the Applicant and his companions ran away saying that they would not leave the complainant alive. At that time, the father of the complainant’s friend Sampat Baraskar brought the complainant to the civil hospital where he was subsequently administered treatment. In such circumstances, the report of the complainant is filed and the FIR is lodged. Submissions:- 4. Mr. At that time, the father of the complainant’s friend Sampat Baraskar brought the complainant to the civil hospital where he was subsequently administered treatment. In such circumstances, the report of the complainant is filed and the FIR is lodged. Submissions:- 4. Mr. Ostwal, learned Advocate for the Applicant by referring to an order of this Court dated 19 September 2024, by which protection was granted to the Applicant, would contend that all the conditions in the said order have been duly and fully complied with by the Applicant. He has thereby co-operated with the investigation as directed in the said order dated 19 September 2024. He would submit that the nature of injury inflicted on the Informant in the given facts and circumstances is simple injury as clearly revealed from the injury certificate placed on record. The alleged weapon used during the said assault i.e. iron koyata has also been seized by the police station when the Applicant was directed to attend the said police station. This is a clear case of counterblast inasmuch as an earlier FIR was lodged against the said Informant by the Applicant on 30 June 2023 by the Tophkhana Police Station, District Ahmednagar for a similar incident of assault. The provisions invoked are also similar to those under the present FIR. In the said incident, this Applicant had also suffered injuries which led to him to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the hospital. He would submit that the co-accused persons are released on bail by different orders dated 14 May 2024 and 27 June 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, which are annexed to the said ABA. The Applicant has been truthful and forthcoming in disclosing the criminal antecedents against him and also placing the same on record. However, he would submit that as the Applicant has able to establish prima facie case in the given facts and circumstances such criminal antecedents ought not to be the sole factor for rejecting the ABA. At this juncture he would strenuously urge that the Informant is also a person with criminal record allegedly committed offences under the Sections similar to that in the present FIR lodged against the Applicant. This ought to be a relevant and material consideration. The Applicant has fully co-operated with the investigation and undertakes to do so in letter and spirit. Mr. This ought to be a relevant and material consideration. The Applicant has fully co-operated with the investigation and undertakes to do so in letter and spirit. Mr. Ostwal would also submit that there is a delay of about 24 hours in lodging the FIR in respect of which there is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution. For such reasons, custodial interrogation in the given facts and circumstances is not warranted and the ABA of the Applicant ought to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Phule would vehemently oppose grant of any relief in the ABA. He would submit that here is a person, who is a history-sheeter, a person of serious criminal antecedents. The offences allegedly committed by him in the past are similar to the ones in the present FIR. There is a complete possibility that if granted such relief, he would once again commit similar offences, which is gathered from his habitual conduct. Such persons like the Applicant, according to Mr. Phule, ought to be taught a lesson as they cannot fought the law and ought to be fearful of legal consequences. Accepting that the injury certificate reveals simple injury, he would urge that looking at the nature of accusations and the weapon used i.e. iron koyata to inflict injuries by the Applicant of the Informant such assault is of grave nature. It ought not to be dismissed only as simple injury. Though he would not dispute that the alleged weapon is seized, considering the background and conduct of this Applicant, according to Mr. Phule, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. According to Mr. Phule, even if the Informant has criminal antecedents that itself cannot permit the Applicant to violate the law and act in a manner contrary to law. According to him, there is no delay in lodging the FIR as alleged by Mr. Ostwal, learned Advocate for the Applicant. For all such reasons, Mr. Phule would submit that as custodial interrogation is warranted, the ABA ought not to be rejected. Findings:- 6. Firstly, it is to be noted that the present Applicant was granted protection by this Court vide the initial order dated 19 September 2024, which was extended from time to time, which the learned APP would not dispute. Phule would submit that as custodial interrogation is warranted, the ABA ought not to be rejected. Findings:- 6. Firstly, it is to be noted that the present Applicant was granted protection by this Court vide the initial order dated 19 September 2024, which was extended from time to time, which the learned APP would not dispute. It further appears to be not disputed that pursuant to the order of 19 September 2024 of this Court and the conditions imposed therein, the Applicant has attended the police station and co-operated with the ongoing investigation. The fact of simple injury is also not disputed by the prosecution relying on its injury certificate which is a part of the case diary. Also, the alleged weapon used in such assault has been seized by the said police station when the Applicant was directed to attend the police station. Such fact is also not disputed. The record produced before the Court as also from the ABA would indicate that there is a prior FIR dated 30 June 2023, lodged with the same police station in CR No.0942 of 2023 for an alleged incident of assault dated 29 June 2023 reported on 30 June 2023. Pertinent it is to note that the said FIR is not only prior in point in time to the said FIR in the present proceedings, but that it was under a complaint made by the present Applicant being the informant there inter alia against the complainant i.e. Ajay Karpe in the present proceedings. Also, one Vaibhav Baraskar, who happens to own the tea center in the present proceedings i.e. the premises where the alleged assault took place is the co-accused in the earlier FIR dated 30 June 2023, lodged at the instance of the present Applicant. The Sections invoked in the earlier FIR are also similar to that in the present proceedings. In such circumstances, the aspect of enmity, rivalry between two groups, one where the Applicant is the accused person and the other, where the Applicant was the informant and the present complainant being one of the accused cannot be completely discarded at such prima facie stage. In such facts, the submission of Mr. Ostwal, learned Advocate for the Applicant that the given complaint and the said FIR could be a counterblast to the earlier FIR of 30 June 2023 cannot be summarily rejected. In such facts, the submission of Mr. Ostwal, learned Advocate for the Applicant that the given complaint and the said FIR could be a counterblast to the earlier FIR of 30 June 2023 cannot be summarily rejected. There is also some delay in lodging the FIR for which there is no explanation forthcoming at this stage. 7. Adverting to Mr. Phule’s submission that apart from the fact that the injuries are simple as revealed from the medical/injury certificate in the given facts, one ought not to overlook the nature of accusations and that the present Applicant assaulted the complainant with an iron koyata, which has led to grievous hurt to the complainant. However, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the alleged weapon/iron koyata used by the present Applicant as noted in the FIR, has been recovered, which was the primary basis of rejecting the ABA of this Applicant by the Sessions (trial) Court. Also the medical certificate of the prosecution would reveal one injury from the sharp edged weapon on the upper leg, one small contused lacerated wound on the shoulder, pain with small wound on the lower leg and apparently no fracture as per the X-Ray report, for which the injuries were attributed to be simple in nature. Also that there is no reported grievous hurt/injury affecting the vital parts of the informant’s body, which would be of relevance at this prima facie stage. 8. The record, including the ABA would indicate that the co- accused persons i.e. accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 have been enlarged on regular bail by separate orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Bail Applications Nos.804 of 2024 for co-accused No.2, No.555 of 2024 for accused No.3 and No.939 of 2024 for co-accused No.6 as disclosed in the present ABA. Such fact is not disputed by the prosecution, but Mr. Phule would contend that the parameters of the regular bail and anticipatory bail are different. However, it is to be borne in mind that an Anticipatory Bail Application ought to be decided on its own facts and circumstances applying the settled parameters and principles of law in this regard. 9. Mr. Phule would contend that the parameters of the regular bail and anticipatory bail are different. However, it is to be borne in mind that an Anticipatory Bail Application ought to be decided on its own facts and circumstances applying the settled parameters and principles of law in this regard. 9. Mr. Phule, as noted above, has been at pains to state that this is a peculiar case where there are at least four serious criminal antecedents against this Applicant, more particularly for offences under similar provisions as in the present proceedings. In the given factual matrix it is also not disputed by the prosecution that the informant also has a criminal history of offences inter alia under Sections 307 of the BNS . There cannot be a quarrel with the submission of Mr. Phule that two wrongs cannot make a right. However, the judgments relied on by Mr. Ostwal in regard to the aspect of criminal antecedents in such proceedings would indicate that these by themselves cannot be the sole basis for refusal of bail as also observed by the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 648 . The Supreme Court has also held in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 382 that it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances, such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. and not proceed against the accused merely on the basis of criminal antecedents. There are other judgments including that of this Court which have been cited by Mr. Ostwal and are duly noted. It appears from the record that in the present facts and circumstances, the Applicant has disclosed all the antecedents known to him in the application as per the mandate of the Supreme Court in Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , order dated 3 April 2025 passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 1400 of 2025 decisions (supra) on the aspect of criminal antecedents make it clear that there is no straight jacket formula,d that solely relying on criminal antecedents Anticipatory Bail Application ought to be rejected only on such ground, overlooking the vital requirement of prima facie case coupled with the necessity of custodial interrogation. 10. 10. In the given facts and circumstances, the Court finds that there is no breach by the Applicant of the conditions in the order dated 19 September 2024 of this Court granting protection to the Applicant. The prosecution would not dispute such position, thereby indicating that the Applicant has joined the investigation. In the given proceedings, the Court is concerned with the detention of the Applicant at the investigation stage and not testing the legality of the case instituted against him as observed by the Supreme Court in Bijender Vs. State of Haryana which also arose from an, order dated 6 March 2024 passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 1079 of 2024 anticipatory bail proceeding. 11. The Court, at this stage, is unable to accept Mr. Phule’s submission that here is an Applicant being an history-sheeter who deserves to be taught a lesson which would warrant his custodial interrogation. This is more particularly when the present Applicant has shown his willingness to join the investigation and has undertaken to continue to co-operate with the ongoing investigation. Therefore, I am afraid that such submission of prosecution cannot form the basis of custodial interrogation of the Applicant, when the sina-qua-non of prima facie case is made out by the Applicant. For such reasons, custodial interrogation of the Applicant, in my prima facie opinion, is not required in the given factual complexion. 12. Accordingly, the interim order of this Court dated 19 September 2024 is confirmed. The Anticipatory Bail Application deserves to be allowed by passing the following order, which in my view, would meet the ends of justice:- ORDER : (i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with CR No. 0314 of 2024 registered with Tophkhana Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 /24 of the ARMS ACT the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday at 11.30 a.m. (iii) The Applicant shall furnish details of residential address and other contact details such as mobile number etc. to the concerned police station. (ii) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday at 11.30 a.m. (iii) The Applicant shall furnish details of residential address and other contact details such as mobile number etc. to the concerned police station. If there is any change in the contact details, the same shall be immediately informed to the concerned police station. (iv) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission/order of the Court, until further orders. (v) The Applicant shall not influence the witness/es and/or tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever. 13. Needless it is to observe that the above observations are prima facie, in the context of adjudication of this Anticipatory Bail Application. 14. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in the above terms.