Dismissed

Haridas Arjun Jagdale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2014ABA/1224/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction rejected an application to confirm ad-interim anticipatory bail. The court held that the applicants were tampering with prosecution evidence despite claims of no custodial interrogation need, thereby disqualifying them from pre-arrest bail in a serious offence.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim order granting ad-interim pre-arrest bail is vacated and the Criminal Application stands rejected.

Haridas Arjun Jagdale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1224 OF 2014

¶5

(For Anticipatory Bail)

¶6

Haridas Arjun Jagdale & ors .Applicants

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents

¶9

Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard.

¶12

For the reasons recorded in the order

¶13

dated 19.09.2014 my predecessor has granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.37 of 2014 registered with the Pusegaon Police Station, District – Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 436 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the said order reveals that ad-interim

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶16

protection was granted in view of such

¶17

protection being granted by the Court of

¶18

Sessions before rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail. It also reveals that it was granted in view of the investigating officer being not present due to matter being listed for the first time before the Court.

¶19

In pursuant to the notice of the said

¶20

application issued, learned APP has filed the reply opposing the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail. It is his submission that the offences for which the crime is registered is of serious nature and the punishment provided for it being for ten years and so also may extend up till life. It is submitted that the order passed by the Court of Sessions rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail

¶21

squarely reveals that during the course of

¶22

investigation an attempt was made on the part of the applicants of tampering prosecution evidence in asmuch as an Affidavit of the

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶25

first informant was sent to the police

¶26

regarding the first informant having

¶27

implicated the applicants at the say of the other people. It is submitted that the persons indulging in such activities are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Mr.Bodake, learned counsel for the

¶29

applicants, on the contrary, urged that the applicants have attended as ordered in the interim order passed. It is submitted that

¶30

there is no need for custodial interrogation

¶31

of the applicants. It is urged that the

¶32

applicants were not instrumental for the first informant submitting the Affidavit and they

¶33

came across it as a copy of it was sent to

¶34

them. It is submitted that no useful purpose

¶35

would be served by not confirming ad-interim

¶36

pre-arrest bail granted in favour of the

¶37

applicants as facts and circumstances of the crime do not reveal that their custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶40

After giving anxious consideration to

¶41

the submission advanced by both the parties and perusing the observations made by the Court of Sessions and undisputed facts of such an Affidavit being sent by the complainant, there appears substance in the observations

¶42

made by the Court of Sessions that the applicants are indulging in the act of tampering the prosecution evidence. It is

¶43

obvious as at the time of hearing the application by the Court of Sessions, the applicants were well aware of such an

¶44

Affidavit being sworn by the first informant.

¶45

A perusal of the letter dated 03.09.2014 written by the first informant to the I.O. at

¶46

page No.45 considered in proper perspective supports the allegations of the prosecution of an attempt being made on the part of the applicants to tamper the prosecution material. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the said

¶47

letter does not reveal any other reason

¶48

because of which on the relevant day the first

¶49

Page 4 of 6

¶50

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶51

informant felt it necessary to send such a

¶52

letter. A perusal of the letter does not

¶53

support submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the first informant had forwarded a copy of the said letter and affidavit to the applicants.

¶54

Considering the matters stated in the

¶55

said letter, it is apparent that the said letter was outcome of same act of the applicants. It is difficult to perceive that the letter could have been sent for any other purpose other than favouring the applicants for the reasons known to the first informant.

¶56

Having regard to the aforesaid and even accepting that there is no need of

¶57

custodial interrogation of the applicants for completion of investigation still it is difficult to perceive that the benefit of pre-

¶58

arrest bail deserves to be granted to such persons facing accusation of commission such

¶59

Page 5 of 6

¶60

ABA 1224-14.odt

¶61

serious offence, which may involve punishment of imprisonment for life.

¶62

Resultantly, ad-interim order passed by my predecessor is hereby vacated and the Criminal Application stands rejected.

¶63

Page 6 of 6

Haridas Arjun Jagdale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas Arjun Jagdale and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin @ Autya Mahimanya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin @ Autya Mahimanya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Namdeo Digambar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naushad Ibrahim Bobade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afasar Shoukat Maner Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dyaneshar Haridas Gawali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra