Bombay High Court
Navinchandra Gangadhar Hegde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3438 OF 2017
NAVINCHANDRA GANGADHAR HEGDE )...PETITIONER
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, i/b. Ms.Racheeta Dhuru a/w.
Ms.Supriya K., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
2 Facts projecting from this petition vividly shows scant
disregard to the judicial orders by police authorities.
avk 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:33:10 :::
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
3 The petitioner herein is accused in Crime No.177 of
2016 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 419, 170, 183, 186 and 120 B of the
IPC. The petitioner was arrested in the said crime on 26 th July 2016
and was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 37 th
Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. After rejection of his bail application
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he preferred an application
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
before the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, Mumbai.
The said application was registered as Bail application No.1737of
2016 and after hearing the parties, by order dated 8 th September
2016, the same came to be allowed with the following order :
" ORDER
1. The application is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant be released on his executing
P.R.Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in
the like amount.
3. The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses by inducement or threat.
4. The applicant shall appear before the I.O. as and
when directed by him."
avk 2/7
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:33:10 :::
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
4 The petitioner came to be arrested on 19 th August
2017 at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Sahara,
Mumbai, when he was about to travel to some foreign country.
He came to be produced before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate with remand application on 19th August 2017. He,
then, preferred an application for bail which came to be opposed
by the learned APP by stating that the applicant came to be
arrested in pursuant to Red Corner notice issued against him
during investigation. Unfortunately, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 19th August 2017 was
pleased to reject the said application with a reason that the
petitioner was attempting to travel abroad without prior
permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Heard the learned senior advocate appearing for the
petitioner. By taking me through the progress of the matter after
arrest of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel argued that
once the superior court grants bail to the petitioner without
avk 3/7
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:33:10 :::
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
imposing any condition restricting his travel to foreign country, he
ought not to have been arrested by the police authorities in
pursuant to the Red Corner notice issued during the course of
investigation of the said crime. The learned senior counsel further
argued that unless and until the bail granted by the Additional
Sessions Judge is cancelled by the same court, or some superior
court, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars.
6 The learned APP attempted to justify the action of
arrest of the petitioner with a reason that Red Corner notice was
issued by the Investigator.
7 I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
8 After his arrest in Crime No.177 of 2016, the petitioner
was directed to be released on bail by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, vide his order dated 8 th
September 2016 passed in Bail Application No.1737 of 2016. It is
seen from the said order that no condition prohibiting the
avk 4/7
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:33:10 :::
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
petitioner to travel abroad or to seek permission of the concerned
court while travelling abroad was imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail,
during the pendency of the trial. It is not pointed out, that the
State at any point of time, had challenged this order, or prayed to
get it modified from the same court by imposing additional
conditions against the petitioner restricting his travel to foreign
countries.
9 The Red Corner look out notice is not pertaining to
some other crime but it is in respect of the very same crime
bearing no.177 of 2016. Once the petitioner is arrested in the said
crime, red corner notice issued at some prior stage cannot be
made use to re-arrest the petitioner, despite the judicial order
directing his released on bail. The police, infact, committed
breach of order releasing the petitioner on bail by re-arresting him
on the pretext of the alleged Red Corner notice issued during
investigation.
avk 5/7
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 01:33:10 :::
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
10 Further illegality seems to have been committed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the order dated
19th August 2017 rejecting bail application filed by the petitioner
after his re-arrest in pursuant to so called Red Corner notice by
the police. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed error
of law in holding that the petitioner ought to have sought
permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate prior to travelling
abroad. No such fetters were imposed on his liberty by the
superior court while releasing the petitioner on bail on 8 th
September 2016. In this view of the matter, the impugned order
dated 19th August 2017 cannot be sustained. In the result, the
following order :
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 19th August 2017 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade,
Mumbai, in Bail Application of the petitioner dated 18 th
August 2017 in Criminal Case No.596/PW/2016 is quashed
and set aside.
avk 6/7
22-WP-3438-2017-J.doc
iii) The petitioner should be released forthwith as he is on bail
in pursuant to order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay,
Mumbai, in Bail Application No.1737 of 2016.
iv)Rule is made absolute in above terms and the petition is
disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 7/7
