Bombay High Court
Lavit S/O Badal Khanjar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 apl740.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.740/2016
Lavit s/o Badal Khanjar,
aged 28 years, Occ.Labour,
r/o Khanjar Nagar, Chandrapur,
Tq. Dist. Chandrapur. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra through
Police Inspector, Police Station, Ramnagar,
Tq. Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for non applicant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 03.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The challenge in this application is to the order passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated
16.09.2016 by which the learned Judge allowed the application on
the part of the prosecution which was registered as Misc. Criminal
Application No.643/2016 and thereby exercised the powers under
2 apl740.16.odt
Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and cancelled the bail which was
granted in favour of the applicant on 14.10.2016 in connection
with Crime No. 595/2016.
3. The applicant since was apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.595/2016 for an offence punishable
under Section 65 (e) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
moved before the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The said
application was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No.
534/2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing
the case papers exercised the discretion in favour of the applicant
and granted him anticipatory bail. While granting anticipatory
bail, the learned Judge has imposed following condition:
"(i) The applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation by IO as and when required under written
intimation to that effect."
Subsequently, an application was moved by the State,
that the applicant has flouted the condition imposed upon him and
prayed for cancellation of order granting anticipatory bail. The
said application was allowed.
3 apl740.16.odt
4. The condition which was imposed upon the applicant
specifically shows that the applicant was required to attend Police
Station as and when required by the investigating officer under
the written intimation to him to that effect. Therefore, it was the
bounden duty of the investigating officer to serve a written
intimation to the present applicant if his presence is required in
the police station for further investigation.
5. The State has filed its reply to the present application.
The reply is totally silent as to when the written intimation was
given and in spite of the receipt of the said written intimation, the
applicant failed to remain present before the investigating officer.
Even the impugned order does not show the same. On the
contrary, the impugned order shows that the police personnel
visited the house of the present applicant and left the message
with his family members. That is not the fulfillment of the
condition which the investigation officer was supposed to observe.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot
stand to the scrutiny of law. The order passed by the Additional
4 apl740.16.odt
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 16.09.2016 in Misc. Criminal
Application No.643/2016 is hereby set aside. The order passed by
the Additional Session Judge, Chandrapur dated 14.06.2016 in
Misc. Criminal Application No.534/2016 stands restored.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
