Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Shankar Dawane vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 1 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 appln26.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.26/2016
Rajendra s/o Shankar Dawane,
aged about 34 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Daskholi, Gondia, Dist. Gondia. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Ramnagar, Gondia, Dist. Gondia.
2. Rohit @ Golu Hariprasad Tiwari,
aged adult, r/o Rajanan Colony,
Gondia, Dist. Gondia. ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. A. Gupta, Advocate for applicant.
Ms T. Udeshi, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 01.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. This application is moved by the applicant, who is
brother of the deceased Dharam Dawane. The application is
moved under Section 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail
granted by this Court on 18.07.2014.
3. The present non applicant no.2. was one of the accused
in Crime No.88/2012 registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar,
2 appln26.16.odt
Gondia for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147,
148, 149, 109, 120-B, 212 of the Indian Penal Code, under
Sections 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 3,4,25 and 27 of the
Indian Arms Act.
4. This Court had on 18.07.2014 exercised its discretion
in favour of the present non applicant no.2 and released him on
bail on certain conditions. The record reveals that when the non
applicant no.2 was released on bail, the investigation was over and
final report was already presented in the Court of law. While
releasing the non applicant no.2 on bail, following conditions were
imposed by this Court:
(a) The applicant shall attend Ram Nagar Police
Station, Dist. Gondia on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month
between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon till conclusion of the trial and
co-operate the investigation agency.
(b) The applicant should maintain a diary of his
attendance duly countersigned by the Investigating Officer/PSO.
(c) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/
evidence.
(d) He shall not indulge in any other crime of similar
nature.
(e) The applicant should not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court without its prior permission.
3 appln26.16.odt
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the
non applicant no.2 has flouted condition nos. (a) and (d) that
were imposed upon him by this Court while releasing him. He has
also filed the chart of attendance showing his absence with Police
Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia.
5. The learned A.P.P. also filed reply on behalf of the
State and also on behalf of the Investigating Officer and supported
the application filed on behalf of the present applicant for
cancellation of bail granted in favour of non applicant no.2.
On affidavit, Police Station authorities of Gondia have
pointed out that for the months of September, October and
December, 2014, and January, March, April-2015, the non
applicant no.2 had attended the police station. But from the
record, it is clear that the non applicant no.2 did not attend Police
Station in the month of February-2015. It is further pointed out
by the police authorities that the non applicant no.2 was
continuously absent from July, 2015 to May, 2016. The present
application for cancellation of bail was moved on 20.06.2016. The
record shows that on 17.10.2016, counsel for non applicant no2,
Mr. Daga appeared and sought two week's time to file affidavit in
4 appln26.16.odt
reply, which was granted to him. However, till today, no reply is
filed on behalf of non applicant no.2 disputing the statement of
facts made by the applicant in his application for cancellation of
bail and the reply filed by the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the
prosecuting agency. Thus, it is crystal clear that from July-2015
till May-2016 on not a single occasion, the present non applicant
no.2 attended the Police Station and thereby flouted condition (a).
6. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for non applicant no.2 made
an oral submission that from June-2016 till today, he is regularly
attending the police station and therefore his previous absence be
condoned.
I am afraid that such a submission could be
entertained. By attending the police station from June-2016, the
non applicant no.2 is not obliging the prosecuting agency. He was
released on bail on a condition that he will be attending the police
station on every 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month till the
conclusion of trial. As on today, the trial is not completed.
Therefore, the non applicant no.2 was duty bound to attend the
police station as directed by this Court.
7. It is also pointed out by the learned A.P.P. in reply that
on 10.02.2016, another crime is registered against the present non
5 appln26.16.odt
applicant no.2 vide Crime No. 32/2016 for the offence punishable
under Section 307, 387, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Thus, in my view, he has misused the liberty granted to him by
this Court while releasing him on bail. This shows that the present
non applicant no.2 has scant respect not only to the orders passed
by this Court but he is not a law abiding citizen in whose favour
any discretion should be exercised.
8. Since the non applicant no.2 has flouted the orders and
has not complied with the conditions imposed upon him by this
Court while releasing him on bail, it is a fit case wherein this Court
should exercise its powers under Section 439 (2) of the Cr. P. C.
Hence following order is passed.
Criminal Application No. 26/2016 is allowed. The bail
granted to the non applicant no.2-Rohit @ Golu s/o Hariprasad
Tiwari, by this Court on 18.07.2014 in Criminal Application (BA)
No.285/2014 is hereby cancelled. Police Station Officer of Police
Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia is directed to arrest the non applicant
no.2, immediately.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
