The High Court dismissed three criminal applications entailing bail conditions. The Court held that the responding party's duty to investigate complaints of witness pressure remains, and dismissed the applications for violating bail conditions without setting aside the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 CA2942, 2943, 2945/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2942 OF 2011
Gangubai w/o Ramdas Barde
Applicant
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents
Shri N.B. Narwade, Advocate. for the applicant Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 / State Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate for the respondent No. 2
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2943 OF 2011
Gangubai w/o Ramdas Barde
Applicant
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents
Shri N.B. Narwade, Advocate. for the applicant Shri D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 / State Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate for the respondent No. 2
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2945 OF 2011
Gangubai w/o Ramdas Barde
Applicant
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondents
Shri N.B. Narwade, Advocate. for the applicant
Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 / State Mrs. M.D. Thube (Mhase), Advocate for the respondent No. 2
CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th November, 2011
2 CA2942, 2943, 2945/11
PER COURT :
Bharat i. e. respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 2943 of 2011 is concerned, an additional condition was put that he shall not enter the limits of village Kawadgaon. The learned Advocate for the applicant / complainant drew my attention to the complaint filed by his client to the Inspector of Police Jamkhed as well as to the Superintendent of Police and made a grievance that the satisfactory investigation was not carried out, and on account of that, the respondents are embolden and that they are trying to interfere with the liberty of the applicant and violating the orders of the Court. My attention was also drawn to the private complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed in regard to the incident dated 17th May, 2011 against all the respondents, wherein process has been issued. Merely because the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has issued the process, this Court is not prepared to accept that the allegations set out in the complaint as true and duly proved. Fact remains that, satisfactory investigation was not carried out in regard to the letters which are addressed to the concerned
3 CA2942, 2943, 2945/11
police officers. This is not correct. When the bail order indicates that the accused should not pressurize the witnesses, and if such event occurs, the concerned police officers are duty bound to make proper investigation and ascertain the correctness of the complaint. In my view, so far as these applications are concerned, it would be sufficient to express an opinion by this Court that in future if a complaint is filed by a person like complainant about he being put under pressure, the concerned police officer shall carry out investigation in regard to the said allegation promptly and take action so that the Court would be able to look into the said action taken and in a given case further orders can be passed regarding cancellation of bail. With these observations, all three application stands dismissed.
( R.Y. GANOO, J. )
SRM/ca/2942,2943,2945/11/25/11/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should condone the complaint about alleged violation of bail conditions where satisfactory police investigation was claimed to be lacking.
Gangubai w/o Ramdas Barde
The State of Maharashtra
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
