Advocates:
['GRANTHI MANPREET AJEET SINGH', '', 'BHOSALE MAHESH KALIDAS', 'COPY SERVED ON P P']

921-aba-660-2022.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.660 OF 2022

Randeepsingh Ishwarsingh Sardar

...Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

…

Mr. Mahesh K. Bhosle, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. V.S. Choudhari, APP for the respondent-State.

...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : 30^th JUNE, 2022.

PER COURT:-

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned APP for the State.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that

name of the applicant is not named in the FIR. However, in a

supplementary statement of the injured, his name came to the light

first time in the month of July 2021. The applicant has played no role

in the alleged incident. He has been arraigned as an accused only on

suspicion and having some cases registered against him. The police

have adopted an easy way to arraign the accused as there are crimes

to his discredit. The similarly situated persons more particularly the

person causing simple injury have been released on anticipatory bail.

The investigation is completed and nothing is to be recovered and

discovered from the applicant. He has referred to the statement of

921-aba-660-2022.odt

(2)

the injured which are recorded belatedly. He prayed that the

applicant may be released on bail.

3.

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application

contending that since the day of the incident, the applicant is

absconding. There were 300 to 400 people in the procession and

suddenly they attacked the policemen, therefore, it could not be

possible for the complainant to name each and every accused. But

subsequently, the involvement of the applicant in the said attack

against the public servant was transpired and accordingly, the injured

have given the statements. Therefore, the application may be

rejected.

4.

The facts of the case are that the policemen have been

attacked in one ‘Hallabol’ procession. It has been alleged that the

police were attacked since police did not permit the ‘Hallabol’

procession. No doubt there were hundreds of people, perusal of the

statement of the injured reveals that they have not stated the role

played by the applicant except his presence on the spot of the

incident. The role played by the applicant a factor to be considered

while granting the bail. The learned APP is correct in pointing out

that the antecedents is also one of the grounds to decline the bail, but

the antecedents should be weighed with the allegations levelled in the

case before the Court. The learned counsel for the applicant has

expressed an apprehension of arraigning the applicant as an accused

921-aba-660-2022.odt

(3)

only for the reason that some crimes are registered against him. Be

that as it may, the law is settled that the earlier bad past may not be a

ground to reject the bail.

5.

After having gone through the orders granting

anticipatory bail to the co-accused by the learned Sessions Judge and

by this Court, it appears that the similarly situated persons much less

the persons who have attributed serious role than the applicant have

been released on anticipatory bail. Since the name of the applicant

was unearthed in July 2021, it cannot be accepted that he was

absconding from the date of incident. Considering the allegations

levelled against the applicant, he may not be required for custodial

interrogation. He is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the

following order:

ORDER

(I)

The Application is allowed.

(II)

In the event of arrest, the applicant, Randeepsingh

Ishwarsingh Sardar, be released on bail, on executing P.B. and S.B. of

Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety in the

like amount, in Crime No.114/2021 registered with Vajirabad Police

Station, District Nanded for offences punishable under Sections 353,

307, 120