The court confirmed interim relief in an anticipatory bail application but waived the condition to attend the Investigating Officer, noting the FIR was filed malafide to evade a prior statutory inquiry order.
Interim relief confirmed; condition to attend Investigating Officer waived.
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.
ssm 1 20-aba2678.18gp.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2678 OF 2018
Paresh Manharlal Parekh & Anr. ….Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2019 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2678 OF 2018
Mrs. Sejal Girish Parekh ….Applicant.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-
Paresh Manharlal Parekh & Anr. ….Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.
Mr. Sathyanarayanan, I/by Prasad Borkar for the Applicant. Mr. A.K. Chauhan, Narpat Singh, Prasad Sankpal for the Intervenor. Mr. S.S. Hulke APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kamlesh Jathar, API, Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 13th MARCH, 2019.
P.C.:-
By an Order dated 22nd December, 2018 the Applicant was
granted interim relief and was directed to attend the Investigating Officer on stipulated dates, to join the process of investigation.
1/3
ssm 2 20-aba2678.18gp.doc
2 Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants, the learned
counsel for the first informant and the learned APP. Perused the record of investigation.
3 As has been observed in Order dated 22nd December, 2018 the record clearly indicates that, prior to lodgment of the present crime, the informant had filed a private complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court Girgaon Mumbai with same set of facts and by an Order dated 20th October, 2018 the concerned Court had directed the police officers attached to Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai to conduct inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The record further indicates that, the said Order was forwarded by the Registry of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 18th Court, Girgaon Mumbai to the Senior Inspector of Police, Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station by a covering letter dated 1st November, 2018 which was received by the said Police Station on 23rd January, 2019.
It further appears that, the present crime is registered on 3rd November 2018 with same set of facts and without disclosing the fact that the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate has already issued an Order directing the concerned Police Station to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2/3
ssm 3 20-aba2678.18gp.doc
3 The aforestated fact makes it abundantly clear that the first informant by suppressing material facts and with malafide intention has lodged the present crime. It therefore, appears that the observations made and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2011 SC 312, particularly in paragraph No. 122 (v) are squarely applicable to the present case.
4 In view thereof, interim relief granted by Order dated 22nd December, 2018 is hereby confirmed. However, the condition to attend the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station is waived.
Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
5 In view of the disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 2678 of 2018, Criminal Application No. 221 of 2019 does not
survive and the same is also disposed of.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interim relief granted on anticipatory bail should be confirmed with or without the condition to attend the Investigating Officer.
Whether the facts indicate the First Information Report was lodged with malafide intent by suppressing a prior court order directing inquiry proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of MaharashtraApplied¶25
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paresh Manharlal Parekh
Sejal Girish Parekh
The State of Maharashtra
A. S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
