Shrikant S/O Gopilal Rathi And 3 ... vs The State Of Mah. A)Thr Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10836 Bom

                                                                                                 3-wp581.21.odt
                                                           1/5



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2021
                              Shrikant Gopilal Rathi and others
                                            -Vs.-
                               State of Maharashtra and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                   Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mr.Shyam Dewani, counsel for the petitioners.
                                       Mr. S.D.Shirpurkar, APP for the respondents.



                                                CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 11.08.2021

By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 06/08/2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby an application for grant of ad interim transit anticipatory bail (at Exhibit-3), has been rejected. The application for grant of transit anticipatory bail is pending before the said Court, wherein notice is issued and the returnable date is 13/08/2021.

2. At the outset, this Court put queries to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the office of this Court informed that Transit Anticipatory Bail Application bearing ABA St. No.5072 of 2021 was filed by the same parties and pending before this Court, how could the present writ petition be said to be maintainable and whether this was an attempt at bench hunting. There appear to be certain typographical errors in the annexures filed along with

KHUNTE

3-wp581.21.odt

the present writ petition and hence, the matter was kept at 2.30 pm today with a direction that the record of ABA St. No.5072 of 2021 be produced before this Court for perusal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a pursis along with relevant documents to clarify the position on facts. The said pursis is taken on record. By referring to documents annexed along with the pursis, it is clarified that on 05/08/2021, the aforesaid ABA St. No.5072 of 2021, was filed before this Court and it was mentioned on 06/08/2021, before the concerned Bench for urgent circulation. It is stated in the writ petition itself at paragraph-7 that upon mentioning, the concerned Bench of this Court asked the petitioners to approach the Sessions Court at Nagpur by moving an appropriate application for grant of transit anticipatory bail. It is stated that accordingly, on 06/08/2021, the petitioners filed application for grant of transit anticipatory bail bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.2540 of 2021 and it was taken up for consideration on the same day along with an application for grant of ad interim transit anticipatory bail (Exhibit-3). While notice was issued on the transit anticipatory bail application bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.2540 of 2021, by the impugned order, the application for grant of interim transit anticipatory bail (Exhibit-3) was rejected. On this basis, it was clarified by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the present writ petition has been filed

KHUNTE

3-wp581.21.odt

to challenge the said impugned order.

4. Be that as it may, this Court has considered the contentions raised in the present writ petition. The urgency of the matter is projected on behalf of the petitioners and it is submitted that in terms of settled law, the Sessions Court could have either granted ad interim transit anticipatory bail or the application for grant of transit anticipatory bail could have been taken up immediately for disposal. It was submitted that the very nature of relief sought in such an application is to grant limited relief to facilitate the applicants to approach the concerned Competent Court for grant of anticipatory bail and in the meanwhile, protection is assured for limited period, only to have an opportunity to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of N.K.Nayar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1985 Mh.L.J. 450, order dated 04/07/2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Application (ABA) No.431 of 2019 in the case of Rashmi Amol Madankar v. State of Maharashtra, judgment of this Court in the case of Shantanu Shivlal Muluk v. State of Maharashtra, passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.154 of 2021, dated 16/02/2021 as also in the case of Nikita Jacob v. The State of Maharashtra, passed on 17/02/2021 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.441 of 2021.

5. Mr. Shirpurkar, the learned APP appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the KHUNTE

3-wp581.21.odt

State of Telangana, since the FIR has been registered at Police Station Hyderabad.

6. This Court is of the opinion that considering the nature of relief sought in a transit anticipatory bail application, the Court has to consider the urgency of the matter and the fact that the apprehension of arrest is within the jurisdiction of that Court. Since this Court consistently has recognized that the nature of relief sought in such an application is extremely urgent, it is expected that the Court takes up the application for consideration and disposal at the earliest possible. If issuance of notice and service of notice upon the Police Station where the FIR was registered in another State is followed as a matter of routine course, there is every possibility of the purpose of filing such an application being frustrated. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, that this writ petition is disposed of by giving appropriate directions to the Sessions Court at Nagpur.

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-10, Nagpur to take up Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.2540 of 2021, filed by the petitioners for consideration and final disposal on the returnable date i.e. 13/08/2021 itself. The said Court shall hear the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra and proceed to pass appropriate orders to finally dispose of the application seeking transit anticipatory bail, in accordance with law. The position of law laid down by KHUNTE

3-wp581.21.odt

this Court in the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of N.K. Nayar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and followed subsequently shall be taken into consideration by the aforesaid Court, while finally disposing of the application, filed by the petitioners.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

9. The record of ABA St. No.5072 of 2021 be sent back to the Registry, since it was called only for the purpose of reference.

JUDGE

KHUNTE