Dismissed

Yuvraj Sopan Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2008APPLN/177/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court of Mumbai rejected the applicants' plea for pre-arrest bail. The court found that the applicants failed to comply with an interim order requiring them to appear at the police station on alternate days for interrogation. Furthermore, the court held that the applicants attempted to mislead the court by falsely claiming compliance via affidavit when s

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected on grounds of non-compliance with interim order and misconduct in attempting to mislead the court.

2. By this application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with offence registered with Indapur police station under C.R. No.204 of 2007 for offence punishable u/s.353, 341, 336, 143, 144,145, 147, 148, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

3. By an order dated 23rd January 2008, this court (Coram D.G. Karnik, J) had granted interim pre arrest bail subject to the condition that applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every alternate day commencing from 25th January 2008 to 5th February 2008 between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. for interrogation/investigation and shall co-operate with the investigation. Learned APP submits that applicants have committed the breach of the order and have not attended the concerned police station between 28th January 2008 to 3rd February 2008 and therefore interrogation could not be carried out and further submitted that since the applicants have committed breach of the order of this court and have not availed themselves for interrogation that shows their conduct and the application for bail should be rejected on this ground alone.

4. On the last date itself, the learned APP had submitted that the applicants had not attended the police station the same was disputed by the counsel for the applicants. Therefore, the Station diary/ attendance diary was called for. The original attendance diary is produced for my inspection in the court. Original diary is returned by keeping on

record its xerox copy. The attendance diary shows that the applicants attended the concerned police station till 27th January 2008 and their signatures are recorded in the attendance diary. The applicants also attended the police station on 4th February and their signatures are recorded in the attendance diary. The applicants, however, did not attend the concerned police station between 28th January 2008 to 3rd February 2008 and there are no signatures of the applicants in the attendance diary on those dates. It is thus clear that the applicants did not obey the order of this court granting them interim protection.

5. The applicants in their affidavit filed in the court have stated that they have attended the police station on 25, 27, 29th and 31st January and 2nd and 4th February 2008. They have further stated that on those occasions, their signatures were obtained in register maintained by the police for attendance. The applicants have not anywhere stated in the affidavit that on any occasion they attended but their signatures were taken in the attendance register. In view of the clear statement in the affidavit that the signatures of the applicants were taken in the attendance diary whenever they attended, it is clear that the applicants did not attend the police station on 29th, 31st January and 2nd February

register. The applicants tried to mislead the court that they had complied the order of the court and have attended the police station on every alternate date as ordered by the court. Application for anticipatory bail therefore deserves to be rejected firstly on the ground of non compliance of the order of the court and secondly for trying to mislead the court that the order was complied with by attending the police station on every alternate day as ordered by the court.

Yuvraj Sopan Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Sopan Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ashok Motiram Zole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaipal Parshuram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Shaligram Tayed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Vithalrao Khandave Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Vithalrao Khandave Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs S.K. Bhagat and Anr.