1 05 ABA 582.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO.582 OF 2026 [Mr. Kamlesh s/o Vitthalrao Mahajan and one .vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer, Police Station, Saoner, Nagpur Gramin, Nagpur] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. A.M. Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent-State. Mr. Mhod. Amin Ayyub, Advocate for Informant. …………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 06-08-2026. 1. Heard. 2. In the present matter, this court has granted time to the learned counsel for the informant to file the appropriate application, if he is willing to file the same, but no such application till date is filed on record. Today, he is further seeking time in the matter. The request of the informant is rejected. 3. In the present matter, this court by order dated 2.7.2026 granted interim protection to the applicants by observing in Para 3, 4 and 5 as under : 3. The learned Counsel for Applicants has pointed out that the Informant and both the Applicants are agriculturist. There is a dispute between them regarding the agricultural boundary. According to the learned Counsel, on 26/5/2026 quarrel took place between the father of Informant and both the Applicants on the ground of placing thorny bushes on the boundary to prevent cattle from entering into the field. As a result of which, the Applicants 2026:BHC-NAG:10109 2 05 ABA 582.26.odt assault the father of Informant by means of wooden shovel on his leg. 4. The learned Counsel for Applicant further pointed out that the Applicants lodged the complaint against the father of Informant in counter-blast, which is registered as Crime No.566/2026 with Police Station, Saoner, District Nagpur (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) and 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 5. In addition to above, the learned Counsel for Applicants states that initially the Sessions Court has rejected the interim protection, against which, they approached before this Court by filing Criminal Application (ABA) No. 455/2026. In that proceeding, this Court, vide order dated 10/6/2026, granted interim protection and directed them to attend the concerned Police Station. Accordingly, they have attended the concerned Police Station and tendered their co-operation to the Investigation Officer. However, it is contended that during that period nothing has been done by the Investigation Officer, neither recorded the statements of the Applicant nor seized the weapon from the Applicants, which is alleged to be used in the present offence. The learned Counsel for Applicant stated that without considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Sessions Court has rejected the application, and therefore, the present Applicants again approached before this Court by way of filing the present Application.” 4. In response to the notices issued to the respondent- State, the learned APP has filed the reply in the matter. It is pointed out that after registration of the offence, the investigation officer has drawn the spot panchanama, collected the medical documents of the injured and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. According to him, there are two 3 05 ABA 582.26.odt criminal antecedents against applicant no.1 Kamlesh and one offence is registered against the applicant no.2 Dhananjay. Considering this criminal antecedents, it is the submission of the learned APP that there are chances to repeat the same kind of offence by the present applicants and, therefore, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants in response to the reply filed by the learned APP has pointed out criminal antecedents which are registered against applicant no.2, he has been acquitted by the competent court of law and at present there are no criminal antecedents against applicant no.2 and against applicant no.1, the criminal case was filed by his ex-wife arising out of matrimonial dispute. 6. It is important to note that this court, while granting interim protection, directed the applicants to attend the Police Station. Accordingly, they have attended the Police Station and cooperated in the investigation. This fact is not disputed in the matter. It is further seen from the record that the enquiry is virtually completed and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the order passed by this court dated 7.7.2026 is hereby confirmed on the same conditions only with a rider that instead of attending the Police Station on a specific date, the applicants shall attend the Police Station as and when called by the investigation officer, till filing of chargesheet. 8. The application stands disposed of. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) Gulande