Dhananjay S/O Bhaurao Surkar (In ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3187 Bom

            J-cwp418.16.odt                                                                                                1/6   


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                            
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                             
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.418 OF 2016


            Dhananjay s/o. Bhaurao Surkar,




                                                                            
            Aged about 51 years,
            R/o. 304, Bageshri Housing Society,
            Sinhgad Road, Anand Nagar, Pune.
            (Presently at Central Jail, Nagpur)                                         :      PETITIONER




                                                          
                               ...VERSUS...
                                 
            The State of Maharashtra,
            Through P.S.O.,
            P.S. Sadar, Nagpur.                                                          :      RESPONDENT
                                
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Petitioner.
      

            Shri H.D. Dubey, APP for the Respondent.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   



                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 24 JUNE, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

J-cwp418.16.odt 2/6

4. This criminal writ petition has been very strongly

opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. However, on merits of the case, I find that no purpose

would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for any longer

period of time. The reason is that on 15.4.2013, the petitioner was

granted bail on the ground that his role was secondary to the role

of the main accused Mukesh Jadhav and that investigation was so

far as this petitioner was concerned, was also over. It was also

noted by this Court that by 15th April, 2013, this petitioner had

spent time of about 40 days in custody.

6. Subsequently, an application was filed by the

prosecution seeking cancellation of bail so granted to the petitioner

on the ground that the summons issued by the Investigating Officer

for attending the police station was disobeyed by this petitioner.

The bail that was granted to the petitioner was conditional and his

attendance at the police station was one of the conditions observed

in breach by the petitioner and also it was subsequently noticed by

this Court that the petitioner was not co-operating with the

Investigating Agency and had to be produced before the Court in

execution of a non-bailable warrant and so, this Court later on

thought it fit to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on 15 th

J-cwp418.16.odt 3/6

April, 2013.

7. Now, the petitioner has again spent about one and half

month in jail and the charge-sheet has still not been filed. The

prosecution was granted an opportunity to interrogate the applicant

while he was in jail custody during the period from 15.6.2016 to

19.6.2016. The requisite permission was granted by the trial Court.

However, on the ground that the Investigating Officer was arrested

in an anti corruption case, the interrogation of the petitioner could

not be carried out by the Investigating Officer, submits the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor. The Investigating Officer was

arrested on 15.6.2016 and, therefore, time of four days was still

available for the prosecution to interrogate the petitioner and same

could have been utilized by the prosecution by handing over the

charge of the investigation to some other competent officer. That

was not done by the prosecution. It appears that on 20 th June,

2016, another application was moved before the learned Magistrate

seeking extension of time of interrogation of the petitioner.

Considering the pendency of that application, this Court thought it

fit to grant further time to the prosecution and accordingly an order

was passed to that effect on 21 st June, 2016. The Investigating

Officer was granted further time to interrogate the petitioner by

J-cwp418.16.odt 4/6

allowing the application dated 20.6.2016 by the trial Court. The

time that has been granted now is from 30.6.2016 to 4.7.2016. It

appears that the Investigating Officer did not make any effort to

seek the extension of time from 21 st June, 2016 and the result is

that because of such an order passed by the trial Court, the

petitioner would be kept waiting while in jail custody till the

Investigating Officer decides as per his choice to interrogate him. It

must be noted here that the convenience of the Investigating Officer

is important, so is the personal liberty of the petitioner. If the

petitioner is being kept in jail only for the purpose of his

interrogation by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating

Officer is taking his own time to do so, this Court would have to

intervene and protect the personal liberty of the applicant as well.

After all, the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court and now

that the opportunity has been given to the prosecution, the

opportunity, it is the expectation of law, ought to have been utilized

by the prosecution optimally and appropriately. That has not been

done by the prosecution.

8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the

petitioner would be entitled to be released on bail by imposing

stringent conditions. I must make it clear that one of the grounds

J-cwp418.16.odt 5/6

raised in this petition relates to the statutory right of bail of the

petitioner and I do not think it necessary to make any

determination in respect of same as on merits of the case, the

petitioner has been found entitled to be released on bail.

9. In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed.

It is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on

his furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and two

solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each on following conditions :

i) the petitioner shall attend the Office of the

Crime Branch, Nagpur every day between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.

for a period of one week, starting from the date of his release and

also on such other date and at such other time, as may be required

by the Investigating Officer.

ii) shall co-operate with the Police in the

investigation and shall not tamper to the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall furnish his permanent

address together with landline number of telephone, if any, and

mobile number to the Investigating Officer along with proof of

address such as Aadhar Card, Passport, Driving Licence, PAN

number and so on.

                               iv)                The   petitioner   shall   reside   in   Nagpur   and





                       J-cwp418.16.odt                                                                                                6/6   

shall always make himself available to the prosecution for the

purposes of investigation, as and when required and if the

petitioner intends to change the residential address, he shall do so

only with prior permission of the Court having jurisdiction over the

case.

10. Rule is made absolute in these terms.

                                            ig                                                           JUDGE
                                          
    okMksns