1 509.24ABA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2024 Ananda s/o. Chindha Koli, Age: 68 years, occu : Agricultural and Social Work, R/o. Behind Chhaged Oil Mill, Ghat Road, Chalisgaon, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Investigation Officer, Police Inspector, Chalisgaon City Police Station, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2] The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS … Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Ashwini Sahastrabudhe & Adv. Jay Veer i/b. Mr.S.B.Kadu, Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, learned APP for the respondent-State Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the Assist to P.P. … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 14.01.2025 P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the Assist to P.P. 2025:BHC-AUG:989 2 509.24ABA 2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 24/2024, registered at Chalisgaon Police Station, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 323, 324, 504, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC and Section 37 (1) (3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 25 and 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3] It is alleged in the FIR that Anand Shivaji Agone [informant] resides with his family members at Chalisgaon. Shubham is his nephew i.e. cousin’s son and works in Police Department at Mumbai, was on leave and had come to Chalisgaon. It is alleged that on 14.01.2024 the informant, Shubham, Akshay Agone, Shubham Tukaram Borade, Vinod, Vaibhav, Sumit, Rahul etc. friends had gone to play sem-final match of cricket tournament, against the team of Saurabh Koli, Siddhant Koli, Vasant Bachhav, etc. and the team of informant won. However, after coming out of cricket ground above, three persons along with other members of team argued with the informant etc. and started abusing. That time Vasant Bachhav had taken out a knife and threatened to assault. However, that dispute was resolved. It is further alleged that in the evening around 4 O’clock they had gone for final match and had won it. Celebrating it raising slogans etc. they were returning. Allegedly in the office of Anna Chindha Koli [applicant] at 3 509.24ABA Ghat road Saurabh Koli, Siddhan Koli, Anna Koli, Vasant Bachhav, Pruthvi Kumawat and their companions threw stones at the informant etc. It is further alleged that around 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. the applicant and others came in richshaw and on motorcycle towards the informant etc. They got down and ran at the informant and others. It is further alleged that Vasant Bachhav had a chopper, Siddhant Koli had cricket bat, Pruthvi Kumawat and 3-4 others had cricket stumps and after reaching near them, the applicant and Chitra More pointed at the informant etc. and said as under : vk..kk dksGh o fp=k eksjs ;kauh vkeP;kdMs cksV d:u ;kauk ekjk [kwi eLrh vkgs ;kaP;k vaxkr vls Eg.kw ykxys- [Anna Koli and Chitra More pointed towards the informant and others, said “hit them – they are arrogant”.] Thereafter, Saurabh Koli assaulted informant with sword but that blow was avoided by the informant by his right hand, Siddhant Koli assaulted informant on head with bat. Vasant Bachhav assaulted with chopper. Pruthvi Kumawat, Jai More and their other 3-4 companions assaulted Shubham with stumps and injured him. It is further alleged that one Rohit intervened to save them when Vasant Bachhav assaulted him on chest by chopper. On account of assault by Saurabh Koli etc. informant’s other friends ran 4 509.24ABA away. Shubham was seriously injured and fell down. Still, Saurabh Koli etc. bet him with stump and bat. The police Rahul Sonwane and other staff came on the spot on receiving informant. At that time,as the police staff came the assailants started running away. The injured were sent to Deore Hospital where Shubham was declared dead. On the basis of said allegation, the FIR was lodged against the applicants on 15.01.2024. 4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court, by order dated 02.04.2024, has granted interim protection in favour of the applicant and the applicant has attended the concerned police station and has co-operated with the investigating officer. Thereafter, charge sheet is filed in the matter. The learned counsel further submits that the Sessions Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant on the ground that there were 10 antecedents against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of 10 antecedents, in 9 cases the applicant has been acquitted and one is pending. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is CCTV footage of the place of incident and in the said CCTV footage, the applicant is not seen. As such, the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged crime and the applicant is 68 years old. Considering the said fact, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in the matter. 5 509.24ABA 5] Per contra, the learned APP submits that on the date of incident i.e. on 14.01.2024 at 10.00 p.m., witness namely Anand Shivaji Agone has given the name of the applicant. The learned APP further submits that there are total 8 eye witnesses to the incident. The learned counsel APP further submits that on the same day, there were three incidents and on third incident, Vasant Bachhav had a chopper, Siddhant Koli had cricket bat, Pruthvi Kumawat and 3-4 others had cricket stumps and after reaching near them, the applicant and Chitra More pointed at the informant etc. and said that these are full of mischief, beat them a lot. At the instance of the applicant, other accused assaulted Shubham with stumps and injured him. Thereafter, Shubham sent to Deore Hospital and Doctor declared him dead. The learned APP further submits that CCTV footage provided by the applicant is not of the spot of incident and the same is being observed by this Court in order dated 05.12.2024, which is as under : 2. Clause 9 of the report reads as follows :- 9- vkjksihus ;kiqohZ ek- l= U;k;ky;] tGxkao ;sFks dsysY;k tkehu vtkZe/;s dsysY;k tkehu vtkZr iksyhl foHkkxkdMqu xqUg~;kps ?kVukLFkGh vlysys lhlhVhOgh xqUg~;kps riklkr tIr u djrk ncko Vkdqu rs u”V dsys ckcr ueqn dsys ckcr ueqn dsys vkgs- okLrfod lnj xqUg~;kps ?kVukLFkG gs dqBY;kgh lhlhVhOgh P;k d{ksr ;sr ulqu vkjksih ek- U;k;ky;kph fn’kkHkqy dj.;kpk iz;Ru djr vkgs- rlsp vkjksihps dk;kZy;kiklqu ueqn xqUg~;kps ?kVukLFkGh ;s.;klkBh nksu rs fru ekxZ miyC/k vkgs- rlsp R;k ekxkZrhy T;k nqdkunkjkauh lhlhVhOgh clfoys vkgs rs 6 509.24ABA R;kaps nqdkukps ‘kVj yxrpk ijhlj dOgj dj.kkjs vkgsr- R;keqGs R;kpsoj voyacqu vkjksihapk xqUg~;ke/;s lgHkkx vkgs fdaok ukgh gs Bjfo.ks ;ksX; ukgh- 6] Thus, the learned APP submits that the applicant is involved in the alleged crime and this not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The interim protection earlier granted by this Court may not confirmed and the anticipatory bail application be dismissed. The learned APP on assistance from the learned counsel for the informant submits that the applicant is the kingpin and the assault is at the instance of the applicant. 7] Considering rival submission of the parties and from perusal of the record of eye witnesses, it is apparent that at the instance of the applicant, other accused have assaulted the deceased. The name of the applicant is given by the witness, namely, Anand Agone on 14.01.2024 at 10.00 p.m. in the Hospital and the FIR is registered on 15.01.2024. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The cause of death of the deceased in terms of P.M. report is as under : “Death due to Hypovolemic Shock due to blood loss from injuries to vital organs (Aorta, Spleen, Lung) subsequent to fatal stab injury.” Considering above, the injuries caused to the deceased are serious and the same resulted into his death. The role of the applicant is clearly visible in the present 7 509.24ABA crime and the offence is serious one punishable with life imprisonment. In view of above, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 8] The learned counsel for the applicant prays for continuation of interim protection. 9] The prayer for extension of interim protection is rejected. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC