IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2022

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.894 OF 2022

RAJU TUKARAM KAMBLE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

...

Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate for applicants

Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, APP for the respondent

Mr. A.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for assist to PP

...

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

RESERVED ON :

11^th MARCH, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON :

15^th MARCH, 2022

ORDER :

1

Criminal Application No.894 of 2022 moved for assist to PP

stands allowed and disposed of.

2

Present applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection

with Crime No.386/2021 dated 18.12.2021 registered with Kinwat Police

Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 307, 354-D,

457, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2

ABA_251_2022

3

Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Shinde for applicants and

learned APP Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, well assisted by learned Advocate Mr. A.P.

Deshmukh for the informant.

4

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants

that the application is based on concocted story as retaliation. Present

applicant No.1 had filed First Information Report bearing Crime

No.336/2021 with the same Police Station on 19.10.2021 for the offence

punishable under Section 436, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code against one Rohit Singare, Raj Maroti Singare, Nirmala Maroti

Singare and Maroti Singare. The informant in the present case i.e. Crime

No.386/2021 is the cousin niece of Nirmala Singare. It was contended by the

present applicant No.1 in his report that all the accused persons had

trespassed into his house on 19.10.2021 at about 2.00 a.m. and thereafter

they had set his house as well as shop (pendal decoration) to fire by pouring

petrol. The damage that was caused to the property of the applicant No.1

was to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The accused persons were arrested and

their bail applications came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Nanded on 15.12.2021, and, therefore, on 18.12.2021 the informant

had lodged report against the present applicants in respect of an alleged

incident took place at 9.30 p.m. on 17.12.2021. Definitely, there is much

3

ABA_251_2022

delay in lodging the report, when she says that the incident had taken place

at about 9.30 p.m. on 17.12.2021 and the report has been lodged around

18.32 hours of 18.12.2021. Nothing is required to be recovered at the

instance of the present applicants. Further, the story itself is unbelievable

and improbable. When she states that the applicant No.2 was harassing her

and insisting that she should accept the love of the applicant No.2 and for

that purpose the entire family would join the applicant No.2. The applicants

are ready abide by the terms of the bail.

5

Learned APP well assisted by learned Advocate Mr. A.P.

Deshmukh strongly objects the application and submitted that the applicants

have absconded and there is evidence against them. The neighbours had

seen articles belonging to the informant set to fire. The informant was alone

when the incident took place and the neighbours have stated that they had

seen two persons running but due to darkness they could not identify, but

immediate disclosure by the informant to them that they were the applicants

carries importance at this stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicants

is necessary.

6

At the outset, it is to be noted that this Court without there being

any concrete evidence cannot jump to the conclusion that there was any

4

ABA_251_2022

connection between the First Information Report lodged by applicant No.1

bearing Crime No.336/2021 on 19.10.2021 against the other four persons

and the present First Information Report. Further, there is no such

documentary evidence to show that there is any relationship between

accused Nirmala in that case and the present informant. So also, it would be

very much premature to observe