Rohit Daulatrao Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10493 Bom

                                             -1-
                                                                criappeal200.22.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2022

Rohit s/o Daulatrao Deshmukh                                           Applicant


        Versus


The State of Maharashtra & another                                     Respondents


Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondent/State.
Mr. Shoib Shaikh, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No. 2.


                                           CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
                                                   R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2022.

PER COURT : ( PER : R. M. JOSHI, J.)

1. This appeal is fled against the order dated 25 th February,

2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3/2022 of

cancellation of bail granted on 24 th August, 2020, in connection with

Crime No. 299/2020 registered with Hingoli City Police Station,

Hingoli.

criappeal200.22.odt

2. Informant / respondent No. 2 fled application for

cancellation of bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, on the

ground that there is breach of conditions imposed while granting

bail to the appellant. It is also alleged by respondent No. 2 in the

said application that subsequently, appellant had forcibly terminated

her pregnancy and in connection with the same, separate crime has

been registered against the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no

intended breach of the conditions. According to him, there is no

justifcation of cancellation of the bail on the ground of registration of

another offence against the appellant as he is already enlarged on

bail in the said crime during pendency of this appeal.

4. Learned APP strongly opposed the appeal with

apprehension of pressurising of respondent No. 2 by appellant.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 while resisting this appeal took

this Court through the contention of respondent No. 2 about

appellant entering in the vicinity of Hingoli city and staying with

respondent No. 2 which, according to him, is the breach of condition

of bail. He further raised apprehension that if bail is granted to the

criappeal200.22.odt

appellant, there is every possibility of appellant again breaching the

condition of entering the city and thereby committing any further act

against respondent No. 2.

5. Perusal of order dated 24th August, 2020, whereby

accused was enlarged on bail, shows that he was ordered not to enter

Hingoli city except to attend trial. He was also prevented from

pressurising the informant and other witnesses directly or indirectly

and not to tamper evidence. The whole idea behind imposing

condition is not to curtail his liberty but only to ensure that

respondent No. 2 who is the wife of appellant does not get

pressurised in any manner by the appellant during the pendency of

the trial.

6. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 and appellant stayed

together for considerable time and had established consensual

physical relations too which indicate that there was no attempt of

pressurising nor any attempt is made by the appellant to forcibly

impose himself on respondent No. 2. Learned trial Court has also

observed that they stayed in a place proximate to Hingoli city and not

in Hingoli city itself, meaning thereby on that count no breach has

criappeal200.22.odt

been committed of condition imposed. Learned counsel for

respondent No. 2 pointed out that around December 2021, the

appellant had entered Hingoli city in the area called 'Mondha' with

respondent No. 2. As far as said allegation is concerned, it can be

safely said that the same was with positive approval of respondent

No. 2.

7. As far as registration of other crime is concerned, the

appellant is already enlarged on bail and hence registration of that

crime will not become a ground for cancellation of bail in another

case.

8. In order to substantiate the contention of cancellation of

bail, it must be brought on record that the appellant had breached

the condition in order to create impediment in the trial. There is

nothing on record to indicate that even remotely the appellant had

pressurised respondent No. 2 or any other witness. Considering the

entire facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any

unilateral act of appellant and in fact respondent No. 2 appear to be

consenting party to the stay in proximity and visit in Hingoli. These

circumstances were not considered by the learned trial Court while

criappeal200.22.odt

cancelling bail and hence impugned order cannot sustain.

9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned

judgment and order dated 24th February, 2022, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli is quashed and set aside.

( R. M. JOSHI )                                     ( R. G. AVACHAT )
     Judge                                                 Judge



dyb