Bombay High Court
Mohd Sameer Mohd Anwar Shah vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 January, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:3912 22-BA-3600-2022.DOC
Gitalaxmi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3600 OF 2022
Mohd. Sameer Mohd. Anwar Shah ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
None present for the Applicant.
Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Vaishali Borase, API attached to Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai
present.
CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
DATED: 24th January 2024
PC:-
1. By this application the Applicant seeks his enlargement on
bail in connection with C.R. No. 565 of 2022 registered with
Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 452, 323, 427, 504 & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (P.O.C.S.O.) Act,
2012.
2. Mr. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent-State places on
record a copy of an order dated 15th September 2023 passed by this
Court in Bail Application No. 1773 of 2023 whereby the present
Applicant is already enlarged on bail on certain terms and
conditions. The same is taken on record and marked as "X-1" for
identification.
th
24 January 2024
22-BA-3600-2022.DOC
3. The present bail application is filed on 28 th November 2022.
The Applicant has filed a subsequent Bail Application No. 1773 of
2023 in this Court in the same C.R. seeking his enlargement on bail.
A pain reading of the order does not indicate that the Court was
apprised of pendency of the present bail application.
4. It is apparent that the subsequent bail application is filed by
the Applicant concealing the material fact regarding pendency of the
present bail application before this Court. This case is one such
case where an attempt appears to have been made by the Applicant
to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice.
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.
1773 of 2023 regarding pendency of the present bail application.
This conduct of the litigant is seriously deprecated.
5. 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,
has laid down mandatory contents of a bail application. In this
decision, the Supreme Court has listed the pre-requisites to be
mentioned in bail applications, to streamline the procedures and to
avoid anomalies. The Supreme Court has thus issued directions in
this regard in its said decision.
6. Considering conduct of the Applicant, one option available to
this Court is to cancel his bail for filing a second bail application
during pendency of the present bail application and, then too,
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 56.
th
24 January 2024
22-BA-3600-2022.DOC
without disclosing the said fact in the subsequent application. Infact
even the learned APP has sought such cancellation, and rightly so.
However, I refrain from taking 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. The application
is dismissed as infructuous.
7. However, the Applicant is directed to deposit an amount of
Rs. 5,000/- towards costs 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 two weeks from today and proof of deposit be furnished in
this Court. Learned APP through the Investigating Officer shall
ensure that the said amount is deposited and the present order is
complied with by the Applicant.
8. Bail application stands disposed accordingly.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
GITALAXMI
KRISHNA
KOTAWADEKAR
th
24 January 2024
