Nana S/O Falgunrao Patole And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8535 Bom

WP  986/15                                                   1                            Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 986/2015
1.     Nana s/o Falgunrao Patole,
       Aged about 53 yrs, Occ. Farmer 
       (Member of Lok Sabha), 
       R/o Sukali, Tah. Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara.
2.     Yogesh s/o Bajirao Kudmate,
       Aged about 45 yrs, Occ. Farmer,
       R/o Kardali, Tah.Arjuni Morgaon, 
       Distt. Gondia.                                                                 PETITIONERS
                                          .....VERSUS.....
1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       through its Secretary,
       Home Department, Mantralaya, 
       Mumbai-32.

2.     Shri Shrinath N. Fad.                      (DELETED)                          RESPONDE
                                                                                              NTS
                                  Mr. O.D. Kakde, counsel for the petitioners.
                                  Mr. A.R. Chutke, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1.

                                               CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

                                                DATE        :          8  TH   NOVEMBER,   2017.
                                                                                

ORAL JUDGMENT 

                Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order

dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

(Railway Court), Nagpur, below Exhibit 1 in Regular Criminal Case

No.41/2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to

issue non-bailable warrants against both the petitioners.

3. Mr.O.D. Kakde, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that there was absolutely no justification for the learned Magistrate to

WP 986/15 2 Judgment

cancel the bail-bonds and issue non-bailable warrants as against the

petitioners. He submitted that the petitioner no.1 was present in the first

half of the session (Court) before the concerned Court and had to rush to

attend an important meeting pursuant to which he had to leave in the

second session. He submits that even petitioner no.2 was present in the

Court in the first session and that on their counsel's request, the case was

adjourned to 29.12.2015.

4. Mr.A.R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed

the petition.

5. Perused the papers as well as the impugned order dated

09.12.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate. An F.I.R., being CR No.B-

4/01 was registered as against the petitioners and 28 others by the

Railway Police Station, Gondia alleging an offence punishable under

Section 174 of the Railways Act. According to the prosecution, the

petitioners and others had obstructed the Chandrapur-Gondia Passenger

Train on 16.10.2001 at the railway station, Morgaon Arjuni for about 2½

hours, in contravention of the Railways Act. After the registration of the

F.I.R. and on completion of the investigation, the railway police filed a

charge-sheet as against the petitioners and others, in the Court of the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railway Court), Nagpur. It

appears that the petitioners appeared on several dates either personally or

WP 986/15 3 Judgment

through their advocates. It also appears that on 09.12.2015, the

petitioner no.1, who is a Member of Parliament, attended the Court and

was in the Court hall till 2.00 p.m. It appears that at about 1.00 p.m., the

advocate for the petitioner no.1 had requested the Magistrate to record

the plea of the petitioner no.1, however, the same was refused and the

petitioner no.1 and his counsel were asked to remain present at 3.30 p.m.

It is informed that again at 2.00 p.m., the same request was made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, and accordingly, the learned

Magistrate was pleased to adjourn the matter to 29.12.2015. It appears

that on the very day, i.e. 09.12.2015, the petitioner no.2 had also

appeared before the learned Magistrate at about 1.30 p.m. alongwith an

application seeking cancellation of warrant issued against him. The

learned Magistrate was pleased to cancel the warrant subject to penalty of

Rs.300/-. Accordingly, the petitioner no.2 deposited the penalty amount

at about 1.45 p.m. and was present in the Court hall. It appears, that the

counsel for the petitioner no.2 had requested the learned Magistrate to

record the plea of the petitioner no.2, however the same was refused and

the next date was given, i.e. of 29.12.2015. It further appears that the

counsel for the petitioner no.1 had also requested the learned Magistrate

to exempt the petitioner no.1 from appearing on every date in person, as

he was a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), however, the learned

Magistrate refused to grant exemption and asked the petitioner no.1 to

WP 986/15 4 Judgment

attend the Court proceedings on every date, failing which stringent action

would be initiated against him. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, as the matter was adjourned to 29.12.2015, the petitioners

left the Court hall at about 2.00 p.m. It is further submitted that at about

3.30 p.m., the counsel for the petitioners heard the names of the

petitioners being called out by the peon of the said Court, pursuant to

which the counsel appeared before the learned Magistrate. It appears

that the learned Magistrate asked the counsel for the petitioner no.1 as to

where the petitioner no.1 was?, to which the counsel for the petitioner

no.1 informed that as the next date was given, i.e. of 29.12.2015, the

petitioner no.1 had left the Court premises and was presently engaged in

a meeting with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The counsel also

informed the learned Magistrate that it would not be possible for the

petitioners to attend the Court proceedings. It is not in dispute, that the

petitioners were present in the Court, in the first session. It is also not in

dispute, that there was a meeting of the petitioner no.1 with the Chief

Minister on 09.12.2015. The minutes of the meeting are at Page 33 of

the petition. It also appears that either the petitioners or their counsel

would remain present before the learned Magistrate in the said case,

which is of the year 2001. Although, there is some dispute, whether the

matter was adjourned to 29.12.2015 or not, the fact remains, that the

petitioners were present in the first session before the learned Magistrate.

WP 986/15 5 Judgment

In this light of the matter, there was absolutely no justification for the

learned Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioners,

more particularly when they had appeared before the Court on the date

on which the impugned order was passed.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order

dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

(Railway Court), Nagpur, below Exhibit 1, in Regular Criminal Case

No.41/2002 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the

aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

APTE