Jivan Abajirao Ghogare Patil vs State Of Maharashtra

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.127 of 2026 dated 23.03.2026, registered with Vazirabad Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 208(b), 318, 336, 337, 338, 119, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The informant namely Jayashree Shantilal Jain approached to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded with a private complaint and proceedings under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS was filed. It appears that consequently FIR No.0127 came to be recorded at Police Station Vazirabad, Nanded on 23.03.2026 against the four accused including the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 308, 208(b), 318, 336, 337, 338, 119, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

From the recitals of the complaint, it appears that accused No.1 is the prime-accused with whom the complainant and her husband had certain trade/business relations. It further appears that the complainant had even lodged Crime No.343 of 2025 on 13.09.2025 against the father of accused No.1. Thereafter, a dispute again arose between the complainant and accused No.1 in relation to a rent agreement alleging that the said document was fabricated. The complainant's husband also lodged a complaint against accused No.1 on 16.10.2025. The complainant narrates in the complaint that no cognizance of the said complaint has yet been taken by the police.

It is further alleged that on 18.09.2025 in the evening, accused No.1 cornered the complainant's husband and threatened to his life if he did not withdraw the complaint lodged in FIR No.343 of 2025. The accused No.1 also threatened complainant's husband that he would be falsely involve him in atrocities cases too. The complainant further contends that thereafter accused No.1 has engaged the services of the present petitioner to threaten the complainant's husband and accordingly, the applicant threatened the complainant's husband by pointing a gun and demanded a ransom of Rs.17 Lakhs.

Mr. Kurundkar, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the complaint. He submits that the recitals of the complaint itself demonstrate that the allegations against the present petitioner have been made only with a view to involve him in the prosecution and to harass him. Mr. Kurundkar further submits that the applicant, therefore, approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, by filing Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.405 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail. However, observing that there was prima facie substance in the complaint, the said application came to be rejected on 19.05.2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Mr. Kurundkar, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that it has been specifically stated in the application that the applicant had already surrendered his arms licence to the competent authority much prior to the registration of the crime and that he was not in possession of any firearm.

May it be, the recitals of the complaint, so far as the present applicant is concerned, prima facie shows following points :

(i) The alleged incident of threatening the complainant's husband by accused No.1 is stated to have occurred on 18.09.2025. However, the FIR came to be registered on 23.03.2026.

(ii) The complainant has assigned reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR by stating that on 16.10.2025 and 24.10.2025 she had approached the police authorities for registration of the offence. According to her, the said request was turned down by the authorities and, therefore, she was constrained to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(iii) Although the incidence of threatening the complainant's husband is dated 18.09.2025 and allegations are made against the petitioner that he later threatened complainant's husband, there is no specific date of the said incidence for which the petitioner is brooked in the offence.

(iv) In fact, the alleged victim of the acts attributed to the accused persons is one Shantilal Jain, the husband of the complainant. However, the said person was neither before the learned Magistrate nor is he the informant in the FIR. There are no recitals either in the complaint or in the FIR explaining why the complaint was not lodged by the said Shantilal Jain and why the informant-Jayashree, was constrained to lodge the same. A prima facie case is, therefore, made out by the applicant for grant of interim protection.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.06.2026. Learned APP waives service of notice for respondent - State.

In the meanwhile, there shall be interim protection to the applicant in the following terms :-

A] Till the next date, in the event the applicant is arrested in connection with FIR bearing Crime No.127 of 2026 dated 23.03.2026, registered with Vazirabad Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 208(b), 318, 336, 337, 338, 119, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

B] The applicant shall remain present before the investigating officer on 08.06.2026 and 12.06.2026 between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon and thereafter as and when required by the investigating officer.

C] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation, including producing all documents in his possession, as may be demanded by the investigating officer.

D] The applicant shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case and he shall not tamper with the evidence.

Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions may result in this order being cancelled.

List on 19.06.2026. Interim protection till the next date.