Bombay High Court
Shoyeb Liyakatali Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:1695
wp1301.23
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2023
Shoyeb Liyakatali Shaikh
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. Satish A. Gaikwad
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.G.Ambedkar
.....
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2024.
PER COURT :-
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated
06.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar in Criminal M.A. No. 142 of 2022. By the said order, the
bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 2.8.2021 was cancelled, on
the following conditions:-
"1. Cri. M.A. (Bail) No. 1143/2021 is hereby allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Shoeb Liyakat Ali Shaikh, be released on
bail in CR No. 31 of 2021 registered with Bhingar camp police
station, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under sections
420, 406, 417, 465, 468, 471 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, on
furnishing PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with surety in like amount, on
following conditions:-
I) He should attend Bhingar camp police station on every
Thursday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of
charge sheet and co-operate with the investigation.
II. He should not come in contest in any way with informant Avej
Shaikh and the witnesses nor to tamper them.
wp1301.23
3. He should not commit similar offence while on bail.
4. Bail before Ld. JMFC.
5. This bail application stands disposed of, accordingly."
2. It is alleged that the petitioner did not follow the conditions
and particularly that he committed similar kind of crime bearing No. 545
of 2022 under Sections 420, 406 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The said crime was
registered on 01.06.2022. The another ground is that the petitioner did
not attend the court regularly.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 8 of its order
dated 06.07.2023, observed as follows:-
"8. This is an offence of cheating with forgery. After
getting released on bail, the opponent No.1 again
committed similar offence within the jurisdiction of
Kondhawa police station bearing CR No. 545/2022 under
Section 420, 406 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code on
01.06.2022. Prosecution also in its say duly supported this
contention. Thus, he committed breach of important
condition of his bail. Secondly, opponent No.1 failed to
regularly and punctually attend the police station to give
co-operation to police in their investigation. Prosecution
also in its say duly supported this contention."
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the alleged
crime is occurred in the year 2020, however, the report was lodged in
the year 2022. Therefore, the said ground is not legal and justifiable for
wp1301.23
cancellation of his bail. Learned advocate for the petitioner further
submitted that the advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dhapse died and
therefore, the petitioner could not attend the scheduled dates. He lastly
prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State strongly opposed the petition.
Learned advocate for respondent No.2 informant has also strongly
opposed the petition and pointed out para Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned
order. He submitted that the petitioner committed breach of the
important conditions of bail, as he did not attend the police station and
committed similar crimes. Learned advocate for respondent No.2
pointed out Roznama/daily sheet of R.C.C. No.1324 of 2021 in which it
is shown that, frequently the petitioner remained absent. Once he had
prayed for cancellation of non bailable warrant and it was allowed. Even,
thereafter also the petitioner remained absent on many dates. He lastly
prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Dolat Ram and Ors.
vs. State of Haryana, decided on 24.11.1994, in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down as follows:-
" Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be
considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing
the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking,
wp1301.23
the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not
exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade
the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the
basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These
principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it
decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it
appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for
rejecting bail in a non bailable case in the first instance and the
cancellation of bail already granted."
7. As far as not attending the police station by the petitioner is
concerned, the daily attendance diary shows that the petitioner attended
the police station. The statement of learned advocate for the petitioner
that the advocate for the petitioner died and therefore, he could not
attend the dates fixed before the trial court, is partly acceptable. It is
because the petitioner has to remain cautions when he is released on
bail in the serious case.
8. As far as commission of second crime is concerned, it
occurred in the year 2020, and the report of which was lodged in the
year 2022. This aspect was not properly considered by the trial court.
Considering all these factual aspects, the reasons given by the learned
wp1301.23
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar are not found legal, correct
and justifiable. However, considering the fact the petitioner remained
absent for so many dates and the trial has been prolonged, it would be
appropriate to allow the writ petition by imposing some costs on him.
9. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The order dated
06.07.2023 cancelling the bail in criminal M.A. No.142 of 2022 is
quashed and set aside, on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit
an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs, within two weeks from today,
to be paid to Ehsaas Matimand Mulanche Balgruh, Satara, by
depositing the same in its account. The account details of the Ehsaas
Matimand Mulanche Balgruh, Satara are as under:-
Name of the Bank : Bank of Maharashtra
Branch : Krishna Nagar Satara
Account No. : 60028487347
IFSC Code : MAHB0000619
Account type : Saving account
10. The petitioner shall remain present before the trial court on
02.02.2024 and shall continue to remain present before the trial court on
the next dates also.
11. It is clarified that if the petitioner continuously remain present
for three consecutive dates, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail
of the petitioner without reference to this court.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
