WP 986/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 986/2015
1. Nana s/o Falgunrao Patole,
Aged about 53 yrs, Occ. Farmer
(Member of Lok Sabha),
R/o Sukali, Tah. Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara.
2. Yogesh s/o Bajirao Kudmate,
Aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Farmer,
R/o Kardali, Tah.Arjuni Morgaon,
Distt. Gondia. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Shri Shrinath N. Fad. (DELETED) RESPONDE
NTS
Mr. O.D. Kakde, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Chutke, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway Court), Nagpur, below Exhibit 1 in Regular Criminal Case No.41/2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue non-bailable warrants against both the petitioners.
3. Mr.O.D. Kakde, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was absolutely no justification for the learned Magistrate to ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:43:48 ::: WP 986/15 2 Judgment cancel the bail-bonds and issue non-bailable warrants as against the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioner no.1 was present in the first half of the session (Court) before the concerned Court and had to rush to attend an important meeting pursuant to which he had to leave in the second session. He submits that even petitioner no.2 was present in the Court in the first session and that on their counsel's request, the case was adjourned to 29.12.2015.
4. Mr.A.R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
5. Perused the papers as well as the impugned order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate. An F.I.R., being CR No.B- 4/01 was registered as against the petitioners and 28 others by the Railway Police Station, Gondia alleging an offence punishable under Section 174 of the Railways Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioners and others had obstructed the Chandrapur-Gondia Passenger Train on 16.10.2001 at the railway station, Morgaon Arjuni for about 2½ hours, in contravention of the Railways Act. After the registration of the F.I.R. and on completion of the investigation, the railway police filed a charge-sheet as against the petitioners and others, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway Court), Nagpur. It appears that the petitioners appeared on several dates either personally or ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:43:48 ::: WP 986/15 3 Judgment through their advocates. It also appears that on 09.12.2015, the petitioner no.1, who is a Member of Parliament, attended the Court and was in the Court hall till 2.00 p.m. It appears that at about 1.00 p.m., the advocate for the petitioner no.1 had requested the Magistrate to record the plea of the petitioner no.1, however, the same was refused and the petitioner no.1 and his counsel were asked to remain present at 3.30 p.m. It is informed that again at 2.00 p.m., the same request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, and accordingly, the learned Magistrate was pleased to adjourn the matter to 29.12.2015. It appears that on the very day, i.e. 09.12.2015, the petitioner no.2 had also appeared before the learned Magistrate at about 1.30 p.m. alongwith an application seeking cancellation of warrant issued against him. The learned Magistrate was pleased to cancel the warrant subject to penalty of Rs.300/-. Accordingly, the petitioner no.2 deposited the penalty amount at about 1.45 p.m. and was present in the Court hall. It appears, that the counsel for the petitioner no.2 had requested the learned Magistrate to record the plea of the petitioner no.2, however the same was refused and the next date was given, i.e. of 29.12.2015. It further appears that the counsel for the petitioner no.1 had also requested the learned Magistrate to exempt the petitioner no.1 from appearing on every date in person, as he was a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), however, the learned Magistrate refused to grant exemption and asked the petitioner no.1 to ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:43:48 ::: WP 986/15 4 Judgment attend the Court proceedings on every date, failing which stringent action would be initiated against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the matter was adjourned to 29.12.2015, the petitioners left the Court hall at about 2.00 p.m. It is further submitted that at about 3.30 p.m., the counsel for the petitioners heard the names of the petitioners being called out by the peon of the said Court, pursuant to which the counsel appeared before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the learned Magistrate asked the counsel for the petitioner no.1 as to where the petitioner no.1 was?, to which the counsel for the petitioner no.1 informed that as the next date was given, i.e. of 29.12.2015, the petitioner no.1 had left the Court premises and was presently engaged in a meeting with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The counsel also informed the learned Magistrate that it would not be possible for the petitioners to attend the Court proceedings. It is not in dispute, that the petitioners were present in the Court, in the first session. It is also not in dispute, that there was a meeting of the petitioner no.1 with the Chief Minister on 09.12.2015. The minutes of the meeting are at Page 33 of the petition. It also appears that either the petitioners or their counsel would remain present before the learned Magistrate in the said case, which is of the year 2001. Although, there is some dispute, whether the matter was adjourned to 29.12.2015 or not, the fact remains, that the petitioners were present in the first session before the learned Magistrate. ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:43:48 :::
WP 986/15 5 Judgment In this light of the matter, there was absolutely no justification for the learned Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioners, more particularly when they had appeared before the Court on the date on which the impugned order was passed.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway Court), Nagpur, below Exhibit 1, in Regular Criminal Case No.41/2002 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE APTE ::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2017 00:43:48 :::