Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Dr. Suchitkumar S/O Diwan Ramteke ... on 8 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
appln.95.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 95 OF 2015
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dhantoli,Nagpur. ..APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Dr.Suchitkumar S/o Diwan Ramteke,
Address No.1- R/o 56,Nirmal Apartments,
Gawande Layout,Ranapratap nagar,
Nagpur.
Address No.2- R/o Flat 201,
Parate Layout, in front of Rachana
Meghsparsha Building, Khamla,Nagpur.
2. Rajendra S/o Namdeorao Bhagwat,
R/o D-3/23,N.I.T.Colony,
Atre Layout,Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.A.Mirza,A.P.P. for State-applicant.
Shri S.V.Sirpurkar,Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri P.J.Mehta,Advocate for respondent no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- AUGUST 8,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsels for the parties.
2] This is an application moved by the applicant-State
under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
cancellation of bail.
3] The non-applicants since were apprehending their
arrest for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section
34 o the Indian penal Code in Crime No.158/2014 registered at
P.S.Dhantoli on 23/6/2014 approached to this Court by moving
the Criminal Application(ABA) No.399/2014. This Court on
7/8/2014 (Corum:M.L.Tahaliyani,J.) passed the following order.
" In the meantime , the applicants shall be released
on bail in the sum of rupees ten thousand each with
one solvent surety each in the like amount in the
event of their arrest in Crime/FIR No.158 of 2014 in
Police Station Dhantoli,Nagpur, for the offence
punishable under Sections 420 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
They shall attend the office of the Investigating
Officer between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. daily until
further orders of this Court."
4] Thus, from the said order it is clear that the present
non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 who were the applicants in the said
application were specifically directed by this Court that they
should attend office of the investigating officer between 4.00 p.m.
and 5.00 p.m. daily until further orders of this Court.
5] Till grant of ad-interim bail order confirmed by this
Court on 5/9/2014 at no point of time the present non-applicants
moved application for relaxation of the condition.
6] This Court on 5/9/2014 in Criminal Application (ABA)
No.399/2014 (Corum: S.B.Shukre,J.) allowed the application. The
portion relevant for decision of the present application under
Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced
herein under:
"In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant this
application. The application is accordingly allowed
and the ad-interim bail granted to the applicants on
7/8/2014 is hereby confirmed on the same
conditions."
7] From the aforesaid order it is clear that the anticipatory
bail was confirmed by this Court on the same conditions meaning
thereby the non-applicants were to attend the office of the
investigating officer daily. However, non-applicants did not attend
the investigating officer daily as directed by this Court, therefore
present application for cancellation of bail is moved.
8] The learned counsel for non-applicants submitted that
though for some period they attended the office of the
investigating officer, subsequently then they did not because they
were mislead by the investigating officer. This particular
submission is devoid of any substance.
9] The non-applicants were under obligation to attend the
investigating officer as per the directions given by this Court. If
really it was asked by the investigating officer that they need not
attend the investigating officer then it was obligatory on the part
of the non-applicants to approach this Court to file an application
for relaxation of the condition. However, no such steps were
taken, therefore it is unbelievable to this Court to accept the
submissions made on behalf of the non-applicants that they were
asked by the investigating officer not to attend the office of the
investigating officer. Further, it is to be noted that in the
application for cancellation of bail, the State has stated on oath
that since the non-applicants were not attending the office of the
investigating officer they were served with notice directing them
to attend of the office of the investigating officer and those notices
were served on the family members of the non-applicants. This
statement is not denied by the present non-applicants at the time
of hearing. The learned counsel for non-applicants submits that
notices were not served upon the non-applicants but they were
served upon their family members. This submission is also devoid
of any substance because this Court never directed the
investigating officer to serve upon the notices on the non-
applicants and in pursuance of the said communication they
should attend the investigating officer. In that view of the matter,
when in very clear words this Court had directed the non-
applicants to attend the police station daily therefore, the non-
applicants were duty bound to attend the office of the
investigating officer.
10] The non-applicants have taken the advantage of the
discretion granted in their favour by this Court, however at the
same time, have shown total disregard and disrespect to the order
passed by this Court in not attending the office of the investigating
officer. That shows the attitude on the part of the non-applicants
that they are above law. Such attitude has to be curbed. In that
view of the matter, the application filed on behalf of the State is
allowed.
11] The anticipatory bail granted in favour of the non-
applicants by this Court in Criminal Application (aba)
No.399/2014 initially granted on 7/8/2014 and which was
confirmed on 5/9/2014 is hereby cancelled for disobeying the
condition that was imposed on the non-applicants.
12] The non-applicants are directed to surrender
immediately before the investigating officer failing which the
investigating officer is directed to take the immediate steps to
arrest the non-applicants and submit the report to this Court.
Rule is made absolute.
JUDGE
kitey
