Bombay High Court
Pradeep Shatrughan Tandale vs Manisha W/O. Devidas Tawar And ... on 19 July, 2022
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 934-ACB-109-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO.109 OF 2022
PRADEEP SHATRUGHAN TANDALE
VERSUS
MANISHA W/O. DEVIDAS TAWAR AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sandeep D. Munde
APP for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. A. Jagatkar
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 19-07-2022
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP
for the respondent No.3 / State.
2. It has been argued that the learned Sessions Court did not
consider the material on record while granting anticipatory bail to
the respondents-accused. However, during the course of
deliberation, he would submit that he has submitted new material
to the Investigating Officer after the Sessions Court granting
anticipatory bail to the respondents/accused.
3. The law has been settled in the case of, Puran, Shekhar
and another Vs Rambilas and another, AIR 2001 SC 2023.
Referring to the case Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi
2 934-ACB-109-22.odt
Admn.) reported in AIR 1978 SC 179, in paragraph No. 16 of
the said judgment has been extracted as follows.
"If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an
accused person to bail, the State has two options. It
may move the Sessions Judge if certain new
circumstances have arisen which were not earlier
known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that
Court. The State may as well approach the High Court
being the superior Court under Section 439 (2) to
commit the accused to custody. When, however, the
State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge
granting bail and there are no new circumstances that
have cropped up except those already existed, it is
futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again
and it is competent in law to move the High Court for
cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the
subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis
the High Court."
4. The Honourable Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra)
has laid down a law that the circumstances in which the State has
to approach the Sessions Court and the High Court. Learned
counsel for the applicant/first informant has stated that some new
material has come to the light and it was supplied to the
Investigating Officer after the respondents were admitted to bail.
In the light of this fact, this court is of the view that the first
informant / applicant has approached to the wrong court. The
applicant has liberty to approach to the appropriate Court. Hence,
the application stands dismissed.
( S. G. MEHARE )
JUDGE
rrd
