Sattar Masum Pinjari vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 3094 Bom

                                                        *1*                        902.cr.wp.1092.15


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                       
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2015




                                                              
    Sattar Masum Pinjari,
    Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labour,
    R/o Ambika Nagar, Kabir Ganj,




                                                             
    Dhule, District Dhule.
                                                         ...PETITIONER
              -VERSUS-

    The State of Maharashtra.




                                                 
    Through Police Station Officer,
    Chalisgaon Police Station,       
    District Jalgaon.
                                                         ...RESPONDENT
                                    
                                               ...
                         Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Pawar Pawan B. 
                          APP for Respondent/State : Shri K.S.Patil. 
                                               ...
       


                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 22nd June, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioner has put forth the following substantive prayers

in terms of prayer clauses 14(B), 14(C) and 14(D):-

"(B) Record and proceeding of RCC No.31/2008 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

*2* 902.cr.wp.1092.15

Chalisgaon, be called for.

(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set

aside the order dated 31.07.2014 passed below application Exhibit-80 in RCC No.31/2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalisgaon, District

Jalgaon, by segregating the trial of present petitioner. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of issuance of Non Bailable Warrant dated 31.07.2014, issued by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon in RCC No.31/2008."

3 I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

respective sides for quite sometime. Considering the order that I intend to

pass, I am not required to advert to their entire submissions.

4 The litigating sides were before this Court in Criminal

Application No.2366/2014. By order dated 28.04.2014, this Court had

specifically directed the release of the Applicant/ Petitioner herein on bail

on a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount on

the condition that he shall report to the Trial Court on every Monday till

the disposal of the case against him. It was also noted that if the Trial

Court is closed on a given Monday on account of holiday, the Applicant

shall report on the next working day. It was also directed to the learned

Magistrate to expedite the trial of the case and if necessary, by separating

the case of the accused who are absconding.

                                                       *3*                        902.cr.wp.1092.15


    5               An   application   Exhibit-80   was   filed   by   the   Petitioner   on 




                                                                                     

05.05.2014 praying for segregation of the trial against him vis-a-vis those

accused who were absconding. On 31.07.2014, under fortuitous

circumstances the Petitioner/ accused No.2 was absent. By the impugned

order, the application Exhibit-80 was simply filed without passing any

order. It is by the order of filing the application dated 31.07.2014 that the

Petitioner is aggrieved and has impugned in this petition.

Considering the observations of this Court below paragraph 5

of the order dated 28.04.2014 passed in Criminal Application

No.2366/2014, it was expected for the learned Magistrate to decide the

application Exhibit-80 keeping in view the observations of this Court.

7 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that if the

application Exhibit-80 is restored, he would address the Court on merits of

the application and would also explain away the circumstances that

compelled him in not attending the Court on 31.07.2014. He further

submits that the Petitioner is presently behind the bars in another crime

registered against him. Hence, he would not be in a position to appear

before the learned Magistrate.

    8               Notwithstanding the submissions of the learned Advocate for 





                                                               *4*                        902.cr.wp.1092.15

the Petitioner as are recorded herein above, in my view, the learned

Magistrate will have to decide the application Exhibit-80 keeping in view

the observations of this Court in the order dated 28.04.2014.

9 As such, this Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed only in

terms of prayer clause (C). It be noted that insofar as the prayer clause

(D) is concerned, this petition is not entertained, meaning thereby, that

prayer clause (D) is not considered by this Court on its merits and is kept

open.

10 The learned Magistrate is, therefore, expected to decide the

application Exhibit-80 in RCC No.31/2008 on it's own merits.

11 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

    kps                                                        (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)