Shivaji Bapurao Gaikwad @ Shivaji Baburao Gaikwad And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. Regarding the alleged assault and theft, the Court found substance in the applicants' contention of false implication. The Court noted that while the informant claimed hospitalization until March 6, 2023, there was no immediate report thereafter. Crucially, a police report indicated a compromise between the parties on March 9, 2023. Furthermore, CCTV footage from the police station did not show the informant's presence on March 8, 2023, contradicting his claim of being refused a report. As for the alleged theft of Rs. 2,39,496/-, the Court found the documentary evidence (soybean sale) insufficient, as it lacked a GST number, which is mandatory for such transactions. Given the delay in FIR lodging, previous enmity, and the possibility of false implication, the Court granted anticipatory bail in terms of an interim order dated March 28, 2023.

Facts

The applicants, Shivaji Bapurao Gaikwad and another, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that on March 3, 2023, he commented on road repair work, and on March 5, 2023, the applicants assaulted him at his home, accusing him of making false allegations. It was further alleged that one applicant took Rs. 2,39,496/- in cash from the informant's house and caused damage to his car. The applicants contended that the informant's car was obstructing traffic and seized by police, that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and that a settlement was reached between the parties. The State opposed the bail application, stating that investigation indicated an assault and the informant possessed cash from soybean sale. The informant claimed delay in FIR lodging due to hospitalization and police refusal to record his report.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the alleged offences under Sections 327, 427, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the contentions of false implication and settlement between the parties? 2. Whether the alleged theft of Rs. 2,39,496/- is substantiated by credible evidence, particularly in the absence of GST registration on the purported sale documents? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued for anticipatory bail, citing a delay in FIR lodging, a recorded settlement between the parties, and the possibility of false implication. They pointed to a General Diary entry showing their car was seized for obstruction and a subsequent entry indicating a settlement. They also questioned the credibility of the alleged theft due to the lack of GST details on the soybean sale documents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the investigation indicated an assault had occurred and that there was evidence of the informant possessing cash from soybean sales. They contended that the informant's claim of police refusal to record his report was unsubstantiated, as CCTV footage did not corroborate his presence at the police station on the dates he claimed.