Sharad Uttamrao Tandale vs Sangram Suhas Bhandare And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5337 Bom

                                                                  1                            11wp3706-21.doc


                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3706 OF 2021

                       Sharad Uttamrao Tandale                                    ...      Petitioner.
                             Versus
                       Sangram Suhas Bhandare and Anr.                            ...      Respondents.



                                                      ----
                       Mr. Bhushan Raut, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                       Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                      ----

                                                           CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                                   SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                                                           DATE       : June 08, 2023.
                       P. C. :


                       1.                 Heard.

2. The Petitioner is chargesheeted for an offence punishable

under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing deliberate

and malicious acts with an intention to outrage religious feelings of

any class thereby insulting its religious beliefs.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that section 196 of Code of

Digitally Criminal Procedure, 1973, contemplates sanction from the State signed by SANJAY SANJAY ASARAM ASARAM MANDAWGAD MANDAWGAD Date:

2023.06.09 Government before initiating prosecution against the Petitioner for an 14:28:43 +0530

sanjay_mandawgad

2 11wp3706-21.doc

offence punishable under Section 295-A of the IPC. So as to

substantiate the said contention, he has relied on the following

judgments:

(a) Manoj Rai and Ors. Vs. State of M.P.

[MANU/SC/0488/1998];

(b) Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another [(2017) 7 SCC 760];

4. The Respondent No.2 in-person is present before the

Court. The facts remains that the learned APP informed to the Court

that the sanction to prosecute the Petitioner under Section 295-A is

not obtained.

5. In view thereof, Rule.

6. There shall be stay to the proceedings. In case the

Respondent State is not in position to secure the sanction for

prosecution, the Petitioner is at liberty to mention.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] [Nitin W. Sambre, J.]

sanjay_mandawgad