Bombay High Court
Bandu Gopalrao Bondade vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Thr ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:10815
1 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2024
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2024
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2024
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 701 OF 2024
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 702 OF 2024
..........
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Proprietor of M/s Bondade Developers
and Builders, Office at Lane no.22,
Panchvati Park, Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.
2] Sanjay Domaji Badwaik
Aged 48 years, Occu. Private,
R/o Nildoh, MIDC, Tah. Hingna,
Dist. Nagpur.
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 698 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Proprietor of M/s Bondade Developers
and Builders, Office at Lane no.22,
Panchvati Park, Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
2 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.
2] Roshan Subhashrao Rahate,
Aged 37 years, Occu. Private,
R/o Plot No. 27, Sadbhawna Nagar,
Godhani Road, Zingabai Takli,
Dist. Nagpur.
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Proprietor of M/s Bondade Developers
and Builders, Office at Lane no.22,
Panchvati Park, Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.
2] Vijay Krishnaji Davre,
Aged 42 years, Occu. Private,
R/o Nildoh, MIDC, Hingna,
Dist. Nagpur.
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 701 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Proprietor of M/s Bondade Developers
and Builders, Office at Lane no.22,
Panchvati Park, Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
3 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.
2] Atmaram Deogade,
Aged 45 years, Occu. Private,
R/o Raipur, Hingna, Tah. Hingna,
Dist. Nagpur.
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 702 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Proprietor of M/s Bondade Developers
and Builders, Office at Lane no.22,
Panchvati Park, Tah. Hingna,
District Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.
2] Anil Namdevraoji Ingole,
Aged 48 years, Occu. Private,
R/o Hanuman Nagar, Wanadongri,
Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amit D. Bhate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. S.V.Kolhe, APP for State in CriWP Nos.696/24 & 701/24,
Mrs. R. V. Sharma, APP for the State in CriWP No. 698/2024,
Mr. H.D. Futane, APP for the State in CriWP No. 699/2024,
Mr. S. C. Joshi, APP for the State in CriWP No. 702/2024,
None for the respondent no.2, though served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2024.
4 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has questioned the
correctness of the condition imposed by the Additional District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur (For short
'Commission'), whereby the Commission, while deciding the bail
application of the petitioner, was pleased to release him on bail, but by
way of condition no.2 directed him to deposit 50% of the total financial
liability towards decretal amount. The main grievance of the petitioner
is that the order directing him to deposit the amount is contrary to the
provisions of law. It is pointed that the order passed is beyond the scope
of the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhate, learned advocate for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
no.1/State. Respondent no.2, in all these petitions, has not appeared,
though, duly served.
5 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that an
identical petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 552 of 2024
(Bandu Gopalrao Bondade .vs. State of Maharashtra and another) has
been decided by this Court vide judgment and order, dated 19 th August,
2024 and this Court was pleased to allow the said petition. Learned
advocate submits that that the facts in all these petitions and the facts in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 552/2024, decided by this Court, are
similar. The petitioner in all these petitions is the same. Learned
advocate submits that the condition in question, imposed while
releasing the petitioner on bail, in all these petitions, is also similar to
the one imposed in Cri.W.P. No. 552/2024. It is submitted that the
present petitions are covered by the decision rendered on 19.08.2024 in
Cri.W.P. No. 552/2024.
5. I have gone through the record and proceedings and also
the decision rendered by this Court in Cri. Writ Petition No. 552/2024,
dated 19.09.2024. I am satisfied that the facts of the present petitions
are identical to the facts of Cri. Writ Petition No. 552/2024. All these
petitions are covered by the said decision, dated 19.09.2024.
6 CRIWP676.24 (J)+4.odt
6. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded, in detail,
by this Court while deciding Cri. Writ Petition No. 552/2024, all these
writ petitions are allowed.
The condition no.2 imposed by the Commission vide
orders dated 02.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, is quashed and set aside.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( G. A. SANAP, J. )
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/09/2024 19:46:17
