The applicant withdrew his anticipatory bail application in a case involving offences under the IPC related to land threat and cheating, seeking regular bail after surrender.
Time of one week granted to surrender; anticipatory bail application allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.
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.
ABA-244-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2012
MR.SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN DAYAL
)...APPLICANT
V/S.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
)...RESPONDENT
Mr.S.V.Marwadi Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs.S.V.Sonawane APP for the State.
Ms.Mallika Ingale Advocate for the Intervener.
CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY DATE : 19th APRIL, 2012.
P.C. :
Heard Mr.Marwadi, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, the learned APP for the State and Ms.Mallika Ingale, who appeared for the original complainant.
2 The applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R.No.52 of 2012, registered at Malwani Police Station, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 452, 385, 506(Part II) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3 There are totally five accused in this case. I am informed that three of the other accused were arrested and have been released on bail. One is said to be absconding.
avk 1/4
ABA-244-2012
4 From the contents of the First Information Report (FIR), it appears that the first informant is being repeatedly threatened by the applicant and other accused with the object of forcing him to arrive at some settlement with respect to the land owned by him. It is not necessary to go into the various details of different incidents, that are mentioned in the FIR. What however needs to be observed is, that there appears to be a prima facie case against the applicant, from the averments made in the FIR.
5 The emphasis of Mr.Marwadi, the learned advocate for the applicant, was on the fact that the FIR is false. He pointed out that on 30.9.2011, a report was lodged by one Shivpujan Singh, who is an employee of the first informant in this case – Omprakash Kumavat, against the present applicant and others, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 394, 452 read with 34 of IPC. From the statements made in the FIR in that case, Mr.Marwadi wanted this court to infer that the allegations levelled in the FIR of the present case are not believable. He submitted that though the FIR in that case relates to an incident dated 30.9.2011, it does not contain any details of the incidents, reflected in the present FIR, though, they have taken place prior to that. I do not find much substance in this, in as much as, the FIR in the other case relates to a specific incident of robbery, whereas, the FIR in the present case relates to a number of incidents of threatening and demands of money, in relation to the land in question, over which the first informant and his partner are claiming ownership rights.
avk 2/4
ABA-244-2012
6 It was next submitted by Mr.Marwadi, that the averments in the FIR in the other case i.e. C.R.No.371 of 2011, registered on 30.9.2011, are found to be false qua the present applicant. He submitted that though the said FIR mentions the presence of the applicant in the alleged incident, which took place at about 14.30 hours, investigation reveals that the applicant was actually admitted in hospital, at that time. My attention is drawn to certain statements recorded by the police in the course of investigation in the said case.
7 Indeed, going by these statements, it appears that the applicant was hospitalized at the time, when the alleged incident of robbery took place. However, the correctness of these statements is itself felt doubtful, by the investigation agency itself. Ms.Ingale submitted that in the course of investigation, the investigating machinery had demanded Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) footage from the hospital, which would conclusively establish the presence of the applicant in the hospital; but the hospital authorities have said that CCTV footage is not available.
8 Mr.Marwadi, the learned advocate for the applicant, contends that the conclusion of the police that the statements made by the doctors and other hospital staff, in the course of investigation, are not true, is baseless and open to challenge. However, considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, he submits that he would not press this application for anticipatory bail and that he would seek regular bail, from the concerned court, after surrendering before it. He however submits that a time of about one week, be given to the applicant to surrender before the Learned Magistrate.
avk 3/4
ABA-244-2012
9 Since the applicant was protected for quite sometime by an interim order, I think it fit, to grant one week's time to the applicant, for surrendering himself before the Learned Magistrate.
10 The application is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such.
11 Mr.Marwadi agrees that the applicant shall surrender before the police or before the Learned Magistrate, on or before 26.4.2012.
12 Needless to say, that any application for bail, if made by the applicant, shall be considered by the Learned Magistrate, on its own merit.
(A.M.THIPSAY, J.)
avk 4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted time to surrender in anticipation of arrest.
Whether the anticipatory bail application should be allowed to be withdrawn.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Dayal
State of Maharashtra
Mallika Ingale
A.M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
