Bombay High Court
Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 9 August, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1 criwp722.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 722 OF 2017
Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar,
aged about 37 years, Occupation
Business, R/o 42, Cosmos Town,
Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gondia. ... RESPONDENT
....
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Sangeeta Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
....
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 09TH AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for parties.
2. Limited challenge in the instant petition is the order dated
07.08.2017 passed by the learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.2, Gondia below Exh.30 adjourning the same for hearing to 15th
September, 2017 before the regular Court.
2 criwp722.17
3. Shri Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime Nos. 156/2014 and
373/2015 registered by the Police Station, Ambazari, Nagpur and in Crime
No. 149/2015 registered with the Police Station, Gondia all for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of
Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
4. It is further submitted that in Crime Nos.156/2014 and
373/2015, petitioner is released on bail by this Court vide its order dated
31.07.2017, provisionally till 05th October, 2017 and similarly, in Crime No.
149/2015, petitioner is released on bail under the provisions of Section
167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is the case of the
petitioner that in spite of her release as aforesaid, under impugned order,
the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the fact that the petitioner
is released on bail as aforesaid, adjourned the application filed for issuing
directions to the jail authorities to release her on bail, to 15th September,
2017, to be considered by regular Court noting that production warrant is
issued against the petitioner in Crime No. 149/2015 was pending and thus
found that the application can be considered only by the Court who is
dealing with the matter and accordingly adjourned the same.
5. Shri Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
3 criwp722.17
that since the petitioner is on bail as aforesaid, there is no impediment for
her release from jail.
6. Smt. Jachak, the learned APP, on instructions from Shri Vivek S.
Narvekar, API, Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, makes a
statement that though the petitioner is released on bail in all three crimes,
as aforesaid, in Crime No. 149/2015, offence punishable under Section 3 of
MPID Act is added after application for bail was allowed, and on adding of
said offence, production warrant is issued.
7. In spite of time granted, no order granting of bail to the
petitioner in Crime No. 149/2015 is placed on record by either of the sides.
However, as the fact of petitioner's release on bail has not been disputed
by the learned APP. The only question needs for consideration is that
whether the petitioner can be released on bail pending execution of
production warrant issued against her on addition of offence under
Section 3 of MPID Act.
8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties
state that due to issuance of production warrant against the petitioner, the
controversy now can only be resolved on petitioner's appearing before the
Special Court and on seeking bail, as it is contended that the provisions of
MPID Act are made applicable in Crime No. 149/2015 after she was
4 criwp722.17
released on bail.
9. In that view of the matter, it goes without saying that such
recourse is necessary to be adopted by the petitioner by filing an
application for bail in Crime No. 149/2015 after adding of an offence under
Section 3 of MPID Act, 1999. Needless to say, if such application is filed,
same be decided expeditiously by the learned Court in view of the fact that
the provisional bail granted to the petitioner in other crimes is for limited
period.
10. The criminal writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in
above terms.
The parties to act upon steno copy duly authenticated by the
Court Sheristedar.
JUDGE
*rrg.
