4-ABA-533-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 533 OF 2021

Ganesh Tanaji Kadam

.... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.... Respondent

______

Mr. Subhash Jha i/b Law Global Advocates for the

applicant.

Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State/Respondent.

______

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE

:25^th FEBRUARY, 2021

P.C. :

1.

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in

connection with C.R.No. 445 of 2019, registered with

Paud Police Station, under sections

302,

323,427,143,147,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code, under

Sections 4 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)

(3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. Subsequently Section

120B of Indian Penal Code is also added.

2.

Heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.

y.s.patil

1 of 9

4-ABA-533-2021.odt

3.

The FIR is lodged by one Mahesh Satav. He has

stated that on 09/10/2019, the frst informant was to get

delivery of his new car. The deceased Pratik was his

friend. In the year 2016, one Ganesh Dedge was

murdered and deceased Pratik was an eye witness in that

case. Since then he was on inimical terms with Kiran

Satav and Samir Pandhare. On the date of the incident,

the informant had gone to take delivery of his car. He

was accompanied by his friend Pratik. They started from

Chinchwad towards Lavale village. When they were

travelling from Raut Wadi, Bhare Road, their car was

intercepted by a tractor. From behind their car, one

Santro car came. From that car fve known persons and

two unknown persons got down. The informant has

named Kiran Satav with sickle, Samir Pandhare with

sickle, Kiran Kalmkar with sickle, Mahesh Gawade with

sickle, Rajit Kalmkar with sickle, as the persons who had

got down from the car. They broke wind shield of the

informant’s car and straight way assaulted Pratik with

their weapons. The informant ran away from the spot to

y.s.patil

2 of 9

4-ABA-533-2021.odt

save himself. One of their friends went to Pratik’s house

and brought his father to the spot. Thereafter, all the

assailants went away with their vehicle.

Pratik

succumbed to his injuries. On this basis the FIR is lodged.

4.

Shri Jha, learned Counsel for the applicant

submitted that in the FIR there is no allegations against

the present applicant. He is not even named. In some

statement given belatedly reference to the applicant’s

name is made. According to Shri Jha, the learned

Sessions Judge did not apply his mind in rejecting his

application. The ground mentioned in the order of

rejection of bail regarding the applicant absconding for

many years is not sustainable. In the previous case, the

applicant had surrendered and was released on regular

bail. He submitted that the fact of the accused was

absconding for many days; cannot be a circumstance for

rejecting the bail application of the accused. There could

be many reasons for his absconding. It may not point to

his guilt. He submitted that in this particular case, the

y.s.patil

3 of 9

4-ABA-533-2021.odt

applicant’s wife had won election of gramsabha of village

Lavale and due to local politics, he is falsely roped in, in

this ofence. He further submitted that the applicant was

an editor of a local daily and therefore he had enemies,

as he had exposed diferent acts of corruption and

malpractices. He submitted that there is no material in

the charge-sheet fled against other accused to show

applicant’s involvement. He relied on the Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh

Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1972), Volume 3 Supreme

Court Cases, page 79 to contend that the circumstance of

absconding is not a circumstance to establish his guilt.

5.

Learned APP opposed this application. He

submitted th