Bombay High Court
Parag S/O. Digambar Raut vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 24 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
revn.172.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 172 OF 2016
Parag S/o Digambar Raut,
Aged 24 years,Occ-Student,
R/o Chulezari, Laxminagar,
Nagbhid, District-Chandrapur. ..... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gittikhadan,
Nagpur. ...NON-APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Ambatkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Miss T.H.Udeshi, A.P.P. for State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :-JULY 24 ,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2] Initially, an offence was registered against the present
applicant vide Crime No.216/2016 for the offence punishable
under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code with
P.S.Gittikhadan.
3] On such registration of the crime the present applicant
moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for anticipatory bail before learned Ad-hoc Additional
Sessions Judge-3,Nagpur.
4] The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-
3,Nagpur granted anticipatory bail on 8/7/2016 on certain
conditions. While allowing the application for anticipatory bail it
was observed by the learned Court below that the prosecutrix who
is major was having love affair with the present applicant since
2011. The learned Judge also noticed that even assuming that
there was physical contact on 28/5/2016 there is delay of 33
days in lodging the F.I.R. and it is not at all explained by the
prosecution therefore the anticipatory bail was granted. After the
anticipatory bail was granted on 8/7/2016 the prosecution filed
an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
procedure before learned Judge for cancellation of bail on the
ground that the applicant has breached the condition . The said
application was registered as Misc.Cri.Appln.No.1934/2016. After
hearing the parties the learned Judge vide impugned order dated
5/10/2016 cancelled the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the
present applicant.
5] After passing of such order the applicant moved before
this Court by filing the present criminal revision. This Court on
7/10/2016 granted ad-interim stay to the effect and operation of
the impugned order dated 5/10/2016.
6] The application under Section 439(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure speaks that after anticipatory bail was granted
on 8/7/2016, when the prosecutrix and her friend were moving in
vegetable market three unknown persons reached to them and
they shown a revolver to them and asked as to why complaint is
filed against the present applicant.
7] Though the incident was dated 21/7/2016, the F.I.R.
of that incident was lodged on next day. On said incident crime is
registered vide Crime No.254/2016.
8] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
investigation is already completed in the said F.I.R. No.254/2016
for the incident dated 21/7/2016. From the chargesheet, he
pointed out that though the incident is occurred in a vegetable
market the police have recorded only the statement of prosecutrix
and her friend only.
9] It is not the case of the prosecution that when the
applicant was called for interrogation he has not attended the
police station. Looking to the nature of the events I am of the view
that Court below should not have cancelled the bail granted in
favour of applicant. Hence, the revision is allowed. The impugned
order passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3,
Nagpur on 5/10/2016 is hereby set aside.
It is made clear that applicant shall not indulge in any
activity of threatening to victim. Further the investigating officer
will be at liberty to call the applicant as and when his presence
requires for investigation. However, for that 48 hours prior
written notice has to be served upon the present applicant.
Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
kitey
