Disposed

Dharmarao Baba Atram v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Aug 2008WP/1679/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge's procedure for rejecting interim anticipatory bail was illegal after keeping the main application pending. The Court granted interim protection forbidding arrest until the main application is heard, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted order prohibiting arrest of petitioner until Sessions Court decides main application, subject to appearance and compliance conditions.

Dharmarao Baba Atram Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1679 OF 2008.

¶2

Shri Dharmarao Baba Atram.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra.

¶6

..Respondent.

¶7

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.S.Mohite, Virendra Maurya & Chaitnya Pendse, i/b.Sachin U. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 14TH AUGUST,2008.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Court at Pune seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as he was anticipating arrest for commission of certain offences under the Forest Act, 1927 and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. An application for grant of interim anticipatory bail was made by the Petitioner. By

¶12

¶13

order	dated	13th August	2008,	the	said	application
for	grant	of ad-interim	anticipat	ory	bail has	been
rejected	by	the learned	Additi	onal	Sessions	Judge.
This	order is	challenged	by	the	Petitioner	by
invoking	section 482 of	the Code of Criminal
Procedure,	1973.

¶14

3.	The	learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner	pointed	out that the application	for
anticipatory	bail	is now kept for hearing on	19th
August	2008.	The submission of the learned	Senior
Counsel	appearing	for the Petitioner based on	two
decisions	of thi	s Court is that by keeping the	main
application	for	anticipatory bail pending,	the
learned	Judge c	ould not have rejected the	application
for	interim pr	otection. He urged that if the	leaned
Judge	was not	inclined to grant anticipatory ba	il, he
ought	to hav	e rejected the main application	itself.
His	submission	is that as main application	for
anticipatory	bail	is kept pending, the	Petitioner
cannot	approach	this Court by filing an	application
for	anticipatory	bail. He submitted that he	has
received	a	notice from Sub-Divisional Forest	Officer
calling	upon	him to remain present for inquiry	on

¶15

¶16

18th August 2008 and therefore, the Petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested. The submission is that the main application for anticipatory bail is

¶17

pending and even before the same is heard, the

¶18

Petitioner may be arrested.

¶19

I have heard the learned APP for the State.

¶20

Prima-facie it appears to me that the

¶21

procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Maharshtra v/s. Narendrasingh Rajput [1994(3) Bombay Cases Reporter 348] and in an unreported decision of this Court. Hence, the

¶22

Petitioner deserves to be protected for the time

¶23

being.

¶24

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶25

(i) Till the application for anticipatory

¶26

bail made by the Petitioner is heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, the Petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the C.R.No.1/2008-2009

¶27

registered by the Forest Conservator, Saswad, subject

¶28

¶29

to compliance with the following conditions :-

¶30

(a) The Petitioner will remain present for inquiry before the Inquiry Officer on 18th August 2008 at 11.30 a.m;

¶31

(b) The Petitioner will personally remain

¶32

present before the learned Sessions Judge on

¶33

19th August 2008 when the application for anticipatory bail is kept before the learned

¶34

Sessions Judge; and

¶35

¶36

(i), (ii), (iii) of sub-section (2) of

¶37

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

¶38

Procedure, 1973.

¶39

. (ii) The learned Sessions Judge will decide the application for anticipatory bail as

¶40

expeditiously as possible and preferably on the same

¶41

day.

¶42

. (iii) It is made clear that the learned Sessions Judge will decide the application for

¶43

¶44

anticipatory bail without being influenced by grant

¶45

of limited protection by this Court.

¶46

. (iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated

¶47

copy of this order.

¶48

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

Dharmarao Baba Atram v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmarao Baba Atram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girishchandra M. Gupta Vs Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Bhaskar Shetty and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Shankardas Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nilakshi Vilas Khater Vs the State of Maharashtra