Dismissed

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2006WP/365/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by an accused in the Telgi Scam, being frivolous and bogus due to suppression of facts. The petitioner failed to disclose that another order granted him temporary liberty to attend last rites, making his detention lawful on the date in question.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- on the petitioner. Liberty granted to petitioner No.2 to file a separate petition.

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRI.W.P.NO.365 OF 2006

¶5

 1. Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh

¶6

 2. Ramesh Madhavrao Pawar ..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶9

 Mr.Samir A.Vaidya advocate for Petitioners
 Mrs.A.S.Pai A.P.P. for State
 Mr.P.D.Gharat Spl.P.P. for C.B.I.

¶10

 CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶11

 DATE : APRIL 17,2006

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard the learned advocate for Petitioners and
 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

 2. Two petitioners who are accused Nos.6 and 7
 respectively in Special Case No.6 of 2004 on the
 file of Special Judge, M.C.O.C. Pune, have filed
 this petition. This is one of the cases which are
 generally referred to be the "Telgi Scam Cases".
 The petition is for habeas corpus and the ground
 raised therein is that petitioners were on remand

¶15

 - 2 -

¶16

 in the aforesaid case. Remand was extended upto
 6.2.2006. On 6.2.2006, the petitioners were not
 physically produced before the Court and there was
 no order of extension of remand and therefore,
 their detention is illegal. During the arguments,
 however, the counsel for the Petitioners when faced
 with strong adverse circumstances, conceded that
 this petition be heard only in respect of
 petitioner No.1 Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh and he
 prays for liberty to file separate petition in
 respect of petitioner No.2-Ramesh Madhavrao Pawar.
 Therefore, we have to only consider the case of
 petitioner No.1 Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh that he was
 not physically produced before the Court on

¶17

 6.2.2006. In affidavit-in-reply filed by
 Respondent No.2 i.e. Central Bureau of

¶18

 Investigation, an order of the Special Judge under
 M.C.O.C. before whom the remand matter is pending,

¶19

 has been reproduced which shows that on 28.1.2006
 petitioner No.1 Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh filed an
 application before the Court for giving him
 permission to visit his residence for four days in
 order to enable him to perform last rites of his
 mother who had expired. That application was kept
 for hearing on 30.1.2006 and thereafter adjourned

¶20

 - 3 -

¶21

 to 4.2.2006. On 4.2.2006, Respondent-Central

¶22

 Bureau of Investigation, did not oppose the said
 application on humanitarian grounds i.e. to enable
 the petitioner No.1 to perform last rites of his
 mother. The Court, therefore, passed an order
 after taking into consideration invitation card
 annexed to the said application, according to
 which, 10th day of last rites of mother of
 petitioner no.1, were to be performed on 6.2.2006,
 7.2.2006 and 9.2.2006.

¶23

 3. Therefore, considering this prayer and
 considering no objection given by C.B.I., the
 remand Court on humanitarian grounds, granted the
 said prayer and directed that accused-petitioner
 no.1 Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh be taken to his house
 under proper escort for attending last rites of his
 mother from 6.2.2006 to 9.2.2006.

¶24

 4. Firstly, the petitioner No.1 has suppressed

¶25

 this material fact from the Court as there is no
 mention of anything in respect thereof in his
 petition. Secondly, when we confronted the
 advocate for petitioner no.1 as to how the
 petitioner no.1 could have been produced before the

¶26

 - 4 -

¶27

 remand Court physically on 6.2.2006 because of the
 aforesaid order dated 4.2.2006, the petitioner’s
 advocate had no answer.

¶28

 5. Therefore, for two reasons, firstly, for
 suppression of material facts from the Court and
 secondly because of the order of the Court dated
 4.2.2006 on humanitarian grounds, this petition is
 totally frivolous, bogus and it has no substance.
 In fact, the petitioner no.1 is a police officer
 and he was expected to disclose all the material
 facts particularly the fact that on 6.2.2006 he
 could not be produced before the Court because of
 the order was passed in his favour by the Court on
 humanitarian ground. For the aforesaid reasons, we
 summarily dismiss this petition with costs of
 Rs.5000/- upon the petitioner no.1.

¶29

 6. Liberty is granted to petitioner No.2-Ramesh
 Madhavrao Pawar to file separate petition.

¶30

 [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.]

¶31

 - 5 -

¶32

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruhul Amin @ Bablu Abdul Rauf Talukdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Murlidhar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lovleen Bains Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoharlal Thakurdas Panjwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhashchand Madanlal Dosi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. .

Rukmini Kalyansingh Rajpurohit Vs the State of Maharashtra