Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Shamrao Golekar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 13 August, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:9129
1 22aba273.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 273 OF 2024
Vijay s/o Shamrao Golekar Vs State of Maharashtra
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. A.B. Mirza, counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. T.H. Udeshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 13/08/2024.
1. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police, in
connection with Crime No. 47/2011 registered with police
station Manora, District Washim for the offence punishable
under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
the applicant approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
2. The allegation against the present applicant is on
the basis of a report lodged by father of the victim girl
alleging that on 27/04/2011 at about 07.00 p.m. his
daughter, aged about 17 years, left the house on the pretext
of attending nature's call and not return back. The learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant and
the victim have already performed the marriage, and they
are residing together. Thus, out of a love affair, the victim
joined the company of the present applicant. As far as the
custodial interrogation is concerned, which is not required,
as the alleged offence has taken place in the year 2011. In
view of that, he be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
rkn
2 22aba273.2024.odt
3. Learned APP strongly opposed the said application
on the ground that though the marriage is performed by the
present applicant with the victim, but applicant was
absconding and proclamation was issued against him. In
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Srikant Upadhyay and others V/s State of Bihar and another
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 282], the anticipatory bail is not
maintainable, in view of that, the application deserves to be
rejected.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP for the State, perused the investigation papers,
from which it reveals that out of the love affair, the applicant
and the victim performed the marriage, and there was a
physical relationship between them. But the facts on record
shows that since 2011, the applicant was absconding, and a
proclamation was issued against him. As soon as the
applicant came to know that a proclamation was issued
against him, he approached the Sessions Court for grant of
anticipatory bail, which was rejected, and now he has
approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Moreover considering the facts on record shows
that, he was protected by granting ad-interim protection, but
as far the submission of the learned APP that proclamation
was issued against the accused/applicant and therefore, he
was declared as a proclaimed offender. In view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srikant
Upadhyay and others referred (supra) wherein it is observed
rkn
3 22aba273.2024.odt
that it is clear that the present appellant was not available
for interrogation and investigation and declared as
"absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding"
and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail. It is further held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that, he reiterated that when a
person against whom a warrant had been issued and is
absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender
in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the
relief of anticipatory bail.
6. In view of the above observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the present case also, the applicant is already
declared as proclaimed offender, and therefore question of
considering his anticipatory bail does not arise, even though
the victim and the applicant have performed the marriage.
However, the learned Sessions Court can consider the
application for bail on its own merits if the applicant
approach the regular bail. Hence, the application for
anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order;
The criminal application is rejected.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
rkn
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/08/2024 14:39:07
