aba.371.16

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Criminal Application [ABA] No.371 of 2016

(Ganesh Ramchandra Wadte

vs.

State of Maharashtra, through its P.S.O. Darwha, District Yavatmal)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders

or directions and Registrar’s orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Shri A.J. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicant.

Shri R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/State.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE

: 5 ^th JULY, 2016.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the

learned A.P.P. for the State.

I find no substance in the argument of the learned

Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely

involved in the offence at the behest of one Ashish Chavan, who

is alleged to be the eye-witness of the incident and against

whom, the sister-in-law of the applicant had filed a complaint,

and because of which, there was an enmity between the

applicant and Ashish Chavan. The reason is that apart from

Ashish Chavan, there are other witnesses, who have witnessed

the incident, in which, the assault was made upon the deceased.

At this juncture, I do not want to enter into any detailed

discussion, as the investigation is still going on. Suffice it to say

that there are eye-witnesses, who have witnessed the assault

aba.371.16

2/2

being made upon the deceased. There is also evidence to show

that the present applicant was lastly seen in the company of the

deceased.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that

on the day of the incident, the applicant was not present in the

city of Darwha. This argument, at this stage, cannot be accepted

as it will be a matter of investigation and only when the detailed

evidence is available, the same would be properly considered.

In view of the above, I am of the view that the

application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the application

stands rejected.

The interim bail granted to the applicant by this

Court on 21^st June, 2016 is rejected.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that

the interim protection granted to the applicant on 21^st June,

2016 be continued for the period of one week.

However, in view of the fact that there is sufficient

incriminating material available against the applicant, at this

stage, the request of the applicant cannot be granted.

JUDGE

*sdw