SubsCrsFIRnotRgistrdWthinProxmtyOfTimMybDemdTobContrBlst
SubsCrsFIRnotRgistrdWthinProxmtyOfTimMybDemdTobContrBlst
SubsCrsFIRnotRgistrdWthinProxmtyOfTimMybDemdTobContrBlst
LatestLaws.com
511_ABA1546_24.doc
Mr. Anand Pande a/w. Mr. Prashant Jain i/b. Mr. Sachin Pandey for Applicant.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Singh for Informant-Intervener.
Mr. Sagar Tilekar, P.I., Naigaon Police Station, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar
Commissionerate.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case
MINAL Digitally signed by
MINAL SANDIP
SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2024.07.09
PARAB 14:20:11 +0530
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 08:11:29 :::
LatestLaws.com
511_ABA1546_24.doc
18.09.2023 registered at the behest of the applicant for the very same
incident, which occurred on 17.09.2023. It is submitted that on the basis
of the information given by the applicant, the said FIR was registered
against unknown persons, but later during the course of investigation,
the accused persons were identified and arrested, one of whom is the
informant, who has caused the registration of the subject FIR. It is
submitted that the said FIR in which the applicant has been arraigned as
accused is registered after about six months of the date of the incident.
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 08:11:29 :::
LatestLaws.com
511_ABA1546_24.doc
8. Having perused the papers and upon hearing the learned counsel
for the applicant, this Court finds that there is a considerable delay in
registration of the subject FIR on 14.03.2024, pertaining to the incident
dated 17.09.2023. The record clearly shows that the informant, in this
case, is an accused in the FIR registered at the behest of the applicant
with regard to the said incident. The FIR registered at the behest of the
applicant was immediately registered on 18.09.2023, just past midnight,
while the incident is said to have taken place in the afternoon of
17.09.2023. The documents on record show that in the incident, the
applicant suffered a head injury, which resulted in a mild depressed
fracture of left parietal bone and also hematoma.
10. Considering the fact that the subject FIR has been registered after
about six months of the incident, prima facie, it appears to be a
counterblast and an after-thought to the FIR registered against the
informant at the behest of the applicant. It is not as if the subject FIR,
being a cross FIR regarding the same incident, was registered in
proximity of time to the FIR dated 18.09.2023 registered at the behest of
the applicant. The Sessions Court appears to have completely ignored
this aspect of the matter, while considering the anticipatory bail
application filed by the applicant. There is nothing to indicate that the
applicant has any criminal antecedents or that he is a flight-risk and in
any case, the applicant has undertaken to co-operate with the
investigation. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed.
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 08:11:29 :::
LatestLaws.com
511_ABA1546_24.doc
Minal Parab
4/4
::: Uploaded on - 09/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 08:11:29 :::