Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... vs Siddharth S/O. Jyotiram Awale on 15 January, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 APPLN67.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2017
APPLICANT : State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT : Siddharth S/o Jyotiram Awale,
R/o Zingabai Takli, Juni Vasti,
Near Marathi School, Police Station,
Mankapur, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for the applicant/State.
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the non-applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 15, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. Heard Shri V.A. Thakre, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the applicant - State and Shri M.N.Ali, the learned
counsel for the non-applicant.
2 APPLN67.17.odt
3. By this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant/State is seeking cancellation of
bail granted by this Court to the non-applicant on 11.8.2017 in
Criminal Application (BA) No. 721/2017.
4. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the applicant has committed breach of the conditions imposed on
him while granting bail in connection with Crime No. 200 of 2016 by
this Court vide order dated 11.8.2017.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
on 02.10.2017, a report was lodged by one Vijay Gawande against
the present non-applicant and his brother Gautam, which clearly
shows that non-applicant has committed breach of the conditions.
Complainant Vijay Gawande's report is registered as Crime No.
203/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 and
195(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The non-applicant was arrested in connection with
Crime No.200/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4, 25 of the Arms act and
3 APPLN67.17.odt
under Section 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Till
the charge-sheet was filed, the non-applicant was in jail. After the
charge-sheet was filed and application for bail was moved by the
applicant before the learned Judge of the Court below, the said
application was rejected. Consequently, the non-applicant filed
application before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The said application was
registered as Criminal Application (BA) No. 721/2017. On
11.8.2017, after considering the material against the present non-
applicant, this Court granted bail in favour of the non-applicant on
the following conditions :
"....IV) The applicant shall not try to indulge in any
criminal activity which will cause prejudice to the
prosecution case.
V) The applicant shall not extend any threat to the
complainant or injured. ..."
After the order, the non-applicant executed bail bonds and was
released on bail.
7. By moving the present application, it is the contended by
the applicant/State that after the non-applicant was released on bail,
4 APPLN67.17.odt
on 27.9.2017, one Gautam Awale, who is said to be the brother of
the present non-applicant, came to the house of Vijay, who is the
eye-witness in Crime No. 200/2016. By coming to his house, said
Gautam extended threats. Admittedly, when Gautam extended
threats, that time Vijay was not present in the house nor when said
Gautam extended threats to the wife of Vijay, that time the present
non-applicant was also present on the spot. According to the report
lodged by Vijay, the incident was occurred on 27.9.2017, however,
for the reasons best known to Vijay, he allowed five days to be lapsed
and the report was lodged only on 02.10.2017 on the basis of which
the offence is registered against the present non-applicant and his
brother.
8. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the non-applicant invited
my attention to paragraph 10 of the reply filed on behalf of the non-
applicant, by which it was pointed out that evidence of Vijay is
already recorded on 11.12.2017. Similarly, the evidence of injured
Vandana was also recorded on 15.11.2017. It is not the prosecution
case that either Vijay or Vandana turned hostile and not supported
the prosecution.
5 APPLN67.17.odt
9. Shri Ali, the learned counsel for the non-applicant
submitted that now the case is fixed for recording the evidence of
Mr. Mate and other prosecution witnesses on 08.02.2017.
10. Looking to the fact that there is an unexplained delay of
five days in lodging the report of extending threat to Vijay and the
evidence of Vijay and injured Vandana is already recorded, in my
view no fruitful purpose will be served by cancelling the bail granted
to the non-applicant. Consequently, the criminal application is
dismissed. Rule discharged.
JUDGE
Diwale
