Narendra @ Naresh S/O. Kavdidas ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...

cwp.165.17.jud                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2017

Narendra @ Naresh s/o Kavdidas Chavan,
Aged about 28 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Pohara, Tah. Chandur Railway,
District Amravati.                                                    .... Petitioner

       -- Versus -

01]    The State of Maharashtra,
       through Police Station Officer,
       Police Station Chandur Railway,
       Tah. Chandur Railway, District Amravati.

02]    State of Maharashtra,
       through Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
       Sub Division Rural, Amravati.                            .... Respondents

Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V.P. Gangane, A.P.P. for the Respondents.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JULY 5, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.



02]             Challenge in the petition is to the order dated

04/02/2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (MCOCA) and




 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:08:46 :::
 cwp.165.17.jud                      2


Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on the application filed by

respondent no.2 in Crime No.373/2016 thereby cancelling the

bail granted to petitioner vide order dated 09/01/2017.



03]             Few facts relevant for decision of this petition may be

stated as under :


            i. A complaint was lodged with Chandur Railway Police

                Station alleging that on 03/12/2016 when complainant

                was proceeding towards Amravati along with his

                friend, two unknown persons obstructed and beat

                them. It was alleged that those persons threatened

                the complainant and his friend, snatched away gold

                ornaments worth Rs.40,000/- and cash of Rs.800/-. On

                the basis of complaint lodged on 04/12/2016, Crime

                No.373/2016 came to be registered against petitioner

                and others for the offence punishable under Section

                394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.


            ii. Petitioner was arrested on 10/12/2016. He moved an

                application for his enlargement on bail and the

                learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati vide




 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:08:46 :::
 cwp.165.17.jud                              3


                order dated 09/01/2017 released the petitioner on

                bail.



            iii. Later on offences under MCOC Act came to be added

                and Investigating Officer moved an application on

                25/01/2017        for     cancellation      of    bail      granted         to

                petitioner and other accused persons. Vide impugned

                order, learned Special Judge allowed application and

                bail granted to petitioner came to be rejected. In this

                background, petitioner has invoked extraordinary

                jurisdiction of this Court.


04]             Learned         Counsel     for    petitioner       submitted           that

accepting solitary contention raised in the application that

provisions of MCOC Act have been invoked without application of

mind bail granted came to be rejected. It is submitted that

custodial interrogation of petitioner is not necessary and

Investigating Officer had failed to demonstrate that bail granted

to the petitioner needs to be rejected.


05]             Per     contra,    learned        Additional     Public       Prosecutor

supports the order and submits that in view of the subsequent




 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:08:46 :::
 cwp.165.17.jud                      4


development and since custodial interrogation of petitioner is

necessary, bail granted was rightly cancelled.



06]             It is apparent from F.I.R. that initially offence under

Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came

to be registered against petitioner and others on 04/12/2016.

Application for cancellation was moved on 25/01/2017.



07]             The question is whether the learned Special Judge has

applied his mind while cancelling bail granted to petitioner.                       It

can be seen from the order that merely on the submission of the

Investigating Officer that provisions of MCOC Act have been

invoked and investigation is required to be made, bail granted to

petitioner came to be rejected. The order depicts total lack of

application of mind and is based on the cryptic reasons.



08]             Needless to state that liberty of a person cannot be

curtailed and once bail is granted it cannot be cancelled unless

investigating agency makes an application for cancellation of

bail due to subsequent developments and custodial interrogation

of the accused is necessary.




 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:08:46 :::
 cwp.165.17.jud                                5


09]             In the case on hand,              investigating agency has not

brought        anything           on   record     to    indicate        that      custodial

interrogation of                petitioner   is necessary.            Merely because

provisions of MCOC Act have been invoked, it cannot be

accepted that bail granted is liable to be cancelled.



10]             In the above premise, this Court finds that the learned

Special Judge has mechanically passed the order without

application of mind and the said order needs to be interfered

with in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :



                                         ORDER

I. Criminal Writ Petition No.165/2017 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).

II. Rule is made absolute in the above terms III. No order as to costs *sdw (KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:08:46 :::