Bombay High Court
Rishikesh Rajednra Bansode vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:5949 19-BA-3653-2022.DOC
Gitalaxmi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3653 OF 2022
Rishikesh Rajendra Bansode ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
None present for the Applicant.
Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP a/w Mr. M. G. Patil, APP, for the Respondent-
State.
Mr. Jitendra B. Kadam, PSI, attached to Tilak Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai.
CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
DATED: 23rd January 2024
PC:-
1. This case is one of such case where an attempt appears to
have been made by the Applicant to deceive the Court and interfere
with the administration of justice.
2. The present application is filed by the Applicant on 18 th
November 2022 seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with
C.R. No. 273 of 2021 registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai in respect of offences punishable under Sections 201, 307,
326, 504, 506(2), 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) & 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
rd
23 January 2024
19-BA-3653-2022.DOC
3. When the matter was called out today, none appeared for the
Applicant. However, Mr. Palkar, learned APP alongwith Mr. M. G.
Patil, learned APP for the Respondent-State handed over a copy of
an order dated 11th December 2023 passed by this Court in Bail
Application No. 3907 of 2023 enlarging the Applicant on bail on
certain terms and conditions.
4. It is thus clear that during pendency of the present bail
application, simultaneously another Bail Application No. 3907 of
2023 was moved by the Applicant in this Court.
5. From a reading of the said bail order dated 11 th December
2023, I find no mention that it was a second bail application filed by
the Applicant before this Court, nor does the order reflect any
reference to the present bail application already pending before this
Court. This is a clear attempt of the Applicant to conceal material
facts from this Court. The Applicant ought not to have filed a
second bail application during pendency of the present bail
application. It was atleast his duty to inform the Court during
hearing of Bail Application No. 3907 of 2023 regarding pendency of
the present bail application. This conduct of the litigant is seriously
deprecated.
6. The Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 19 th
January 2024 passed in criminal appeal in the matter of Kusha
Duruka v. The State of Odisha1 while dealing with a similar matter,
laid down mandatory contents of a bail application. In this order,
the Supreme Court has listed the pre-requisites to be mentioned in
bail applications and also recorded that these suggestions are to
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 56.
rd
23 January 2024
19-BA-3653-2022.DOC
streamline the procedures and to avoid anomalies. The Supreme
Court has thus issued directions in this regard in its said decision.
7. Considering the conduct of Applicant, one option available to
this Court is to cancel his bail. Infact even the learned APP has
sought such cancellation, and rightly so. However, I do not propose
to take such an extreme step in the case in hand, although in my
view, this is an option which is open to the Court to exercise seeing
the conduct of Applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed as
infructuous. However, I deem it fit to impose cost of Rs. 5,000/- on
the Applicant for his conduct in concealing material facts from the
Court passing the earlier bail order, to be deposited by him with the
Maharashtra Legal-aid Services Authority within a period of eight
weeks from today and proof of deposit be furnished in this Court.
Learned APP through the Investigating Officer shall ensure that the
costs are deposited by the Applicant.
8. Bail application stands disposed accordingly.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2024.02.07
17:09:14 +0545
rd
23 January 2024
