Criminal application for bail dismissed by Special Court due to absconding. High Court, holding the applicant appeared court seeking warrant cancellation, allowed his bail application imposing a Rs. 15,000 bond and sureties.
Granted bail on executing a Personal Bond of Rs. 15,000 and on furnishing one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
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)Cri. Appln. No. 5546 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Application No. 5546 of 2016
District : Ahmednagar
Kiran Dagdu Bhokre,
Age : 25 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
Labourer,
R/o. A/p. Sawantsar,
Taluka : Kopargaon,
District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicant.
versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Rahata, Taluka Rahata,
District Ahmednagar. .. Respondent.
............
Mr. K.B. Borde Patil, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. S.M. Ganachari, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.
............
CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 25TH OCTOBER 2016
ORAL ORDER:
The applicant / accused is seeking his
release on bail in Crime No. I-46/2014 registered
with Rahata Police Station, Taluka Rahata, District
Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections
(2)Cri. Appln. No. 5546 of 2016
363, 363A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant / accused as well as the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent /
State.
3.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed
the application by contending that despite being
released on bail, the applicant / accused absconded
which has resulted in issuance of non-bailable
warrant against him. Therefore, according to the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the applicant is not
entitled for bail.
4.It is seen from the record that the
applicant and co-accused Prem Padwalkar were already
released on bail during investigation of Crime No. I-
46/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 363,
366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the present applicant had
kidnapped minor daughter of informant Sangita Nawale.
Thereafter the charge-sheet came to be filed and
accordingly the criminal case came to be registered
against the applicant and the co-accused. During
pendency of that criminal case, the applicant and co-
accused remained absent resulting in issuance of the
non-bailable warrant. It is seen that the present
(3)Cri. Appln. No. 5546 of 2016
applicant himself appeared before the learned
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahata, and sought
cancellation of the non-bailable warrant. However,
the said application is rejected and the applicant
was taken in custody. His bail application came to
be rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Kopargaon, with a reasoning that there is delay in
committal of case as the applicant absconded.
5.Prima facie it is seen that the applicant
never intended to delay the trial as he himself
appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate
(F.C.) and sought cancellation of the non-bailable
warrant. The non-bailable warrant against him was
not executed. This shows bona fides of the present
applicant.
6. Hence, I pass the following order :-
(a)The Application is allowed.
(b)The applicant / accused, in the above crime, be
released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on furnishing one or more
solvent sureties of the like amount.
(c)As conditions of this order, the applicant /
accused shall abide by the following directives :-
(4)Cri. Appln. No. 5546 of 2016
(i) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any persons acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing such facts either to the
Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence in any manner and
shall cooperate the learned trial Judge in
expeditious disposal of the trial against
him.
(iii) The applicant shall not repeat
commission of similar type of offences in
future.
(d)The Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.
( A.M. BADAR )
JUDGE
puranik / CRIAPPLN5546.16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused who absconded and had a non-bailable warrant issued against him but subsequently appeared and applied for cancellation.
Whether the bona fides of the applicant justifies the exercise of discretion in his favour despite allegations of absconding.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Kiran Dagdu Bhokre
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court