In a bail application by a habitual offender, the High Court rejected the prayer to set aside an order cancelling bail granted after the applicant committed further crimes and violated attendance conditions post-liberty.
The bail application was rejected and the impugned order cancelling bail was upheld.
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.
55-BA941-18.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 2018
Wasim Anwar Pardeshi ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Akram Kapoor, for the Applicant. Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI, J DATED: 14th JUNE, 2018
PC:-
1. This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code for bail in CR No.226 of 2016 registered with Agripada Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 307, 323, 332, 353, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal
Code r/w Sections 37(1)(c)(g), 135 of Bombay Police Act.
Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the record.
2. The record indicates that by Order dated 17th September, 2016, the applicant was directed to be released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai, in
1/3
55-BA941-18.DOC
Bail Application No.1893 of 2016. After release from jail, the applicant indulged in commission of three other crimes bearing CR No.295 of 2016 under Sections 354, 354A, 509, 506-II, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code; CR No.6 of 2017 under Sections 397 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and CR No.7 of 2017 under Section 397 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from the said fact the applicant did not comply with the conditions imposed upon him of attendance to the Agripada Police Station on stipulated dates. The prosecution therefore filed an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant which has been allowed by the Trial Court and the bail granted to the applicant in CR No.226 of 2016 has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been acquitted from the CR No.6 of 2017 and 7 of 2017. He submitted that the applicant was arrested on 4th January, 2017 in CR No.6 of 2017 and therefore could not comply with the condition of attendance. He therefore he prayed that the applicant may be released on bail by setting aside the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017.
2/3
55-BA941-18.DOC
4. The record indicates that, apart from the facts mentioned above, the applicant was involved in 18 other crimes for a period ranging from 2003 till 2016. Thus, it is apparent that the applicant is a habitual offender. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been acquitted in many of the cases out of said 18 cases. Even is the said statement is accepted, it shows the fact that the applicant has propensity in indulging/committing cognizable and non-bailable offences without any interruption.
5. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts,
this Court is of the considered view that, the Trial Court has not committed any error either in law or in facts in
passing the impugned order dated 28th July, 2018.
6. Application is accordingly rejected.
[A. S. GADKARI, J.]
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for release on bail should be allowed when the applicant committed new crimes after earlier release violated bail conditions and is a habitual offender.
Whether the trial court committed error in law or facts in cancelling the applicant's bail and rejecting the present bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A. S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court