AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 270 wordsPrakash D. Naik, J
Issue notice to respondent. Learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent - State.
The apprehension of the applicant is that he is likely to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 475/2021 registered with Chikalthana Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that offence is of bailable nature. Sessions Court has rejected the application of the applicant for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence is bailable. It is submitted that co-accused Krishna Mangilal Pawar was arrested by the police in connection with the same crime and he was remanded to custody. After granting Magisterial Custody, he preferred application for bail before the Court of J.M.F.C. which has been allowed by order dated 14th October 2021. Hence, although the offence is bailable, there is apprehension that even the applicant would be arrested.
I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence is bailable. However, it is relevant to be noted that the co-accused has been arrested, he was remanded to custody and subsequently granted bail.
Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions.
It is made clear that in the event that no other non-bailable offence is registered against the applicant and in the light of the fact that bailable offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. is invoked in the F.I.R., the applicant cannot be subjected to custody.
Stand over to 4th December 2021.