Partly allowed

Sudam S/O. Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Mar 2019WP/492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Writ Petition addressed the cancellation of bail and modification of attendance conditions. The Court set aside the bail cancellation order, maintained the condition to appear in court, and directed the petitioner to report to a specific police station at designated hours.

What did the court decide?

Order cancelling bail set aside; bail maintained during trial. Order dismissing relaxation application maintained. Petitioner directed to attend Harsul Police Station on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Sudam S/O. Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 492 OF 2019

¶4

Sudam Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Takali-Ambad, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
Through Investigation Officer,
Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

.......

¶10

Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶11

.......

¶12

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶13

 DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2019

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.

¶16

02.The petitioner is accused in C. R. No. 47
of 2018 registered with Police Station, Cidco, Dist.
Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 408 of Indian Penal Code. He was arrested on
3.4.2018. He moved an application for regular bail

¶17

before the learned Court below and it was registered
as Appln. No. 660 of 2018. He was released on bail

¶18

2 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶19

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-8,
Aurangbaad on 8.5.2018. While releasing him on
bail, the Court below imposed following condition :

¶20

(iii) He should attend the concerned Police
Station in between 6.00 PM to 7.00 PM on
every Thursday and Tuesday from today till
filing of the charge-sheet.

¶21

03.Since, according to the prosecution, the
petitioner did not adhere with the condition imposed
upon him, an application under the signature of the
Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Cidco
and District Govt. Pleader under Section 439(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for
cancellation of bail. The said was registered as
Misc. Cri. Application No. 235 of 2018. Similarly,
the petitioner also moved an application for
relaxation of the condition afore mentioned. The
said was registered as Misc. Criminal Application
No. 140 of 2018. Both the applications were taken

¶22

up for hearing simultaneously and disposed of by
common order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, whereby the
Court below dismissed the application filed on
behalf of the petitioner for relaxation of

¶23

3 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶24

condition, however, granted application for
cancellation of bail and thereby canceled the bail.

¶25

04.Againstthesaid,initiallythe
application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was
filed by the petitioner before this Court vide Cri.
Application No. 3769 of 2018 and on 8.1.2019 this
Court (Coram : K. K. Sonawane, J.) kept in abeyance
the order canceling bail. The interim order was
continued till 19.3.2019 and on the said day the
Cri. Application No. 3769 of 2018 was withdrawn by
the petitioner. However, this Court (Coram : K. K.
Sonawane, J) continued the interim relief till
26.3.2019 i.e. till today.

¶26

05.In the meanwhile, after withdrawing the
application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C., the
present writ petition is filed. According to the
prosecution, the petitioner did not attend the
Police Station. On the contrary, according to the
petitioner, the petitioner attended the Police
Station on 4.5.2018, 21.5.2018, 5.6.2018 and
12.6.2018. He has also placed on record the photo

¶27

copy of the diary, which he has maintained duly
signed by the concerned Police Inspector. Even,
this fact is also not disputed on the part of the

¶28

4 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶29

prosecution. According to the prosecution, after
12.6.2018 the petitioner has not attended the Police
Station.

¶30

06.This particular fact is seriously disputed
by the petitioner by submitting that when he
approached to the Police Station, he and his wife
were manhandled and deliberately the attendance was
not marked. The say filed on behalf of the
prosecution to oppose the application for relaxation
of condition is placed on record. In the said say
also the Police Officer has specifically admitted
that the petitioner has attended the Police Station,
however, from 28.6.2018 he has not attended.

¶31

07.It is to be noted here that after the
petitioner was arrested on 3.4.2018 he was in Police
custody remand till 13.4.2018. On 8.5.2018 he was
released on bail. The Order releasing on bail would
show that during the Police custody remand nothing
was recovered at the behest of the present
petitioner.

¶32

08.Further, when the petitioner has submitted
that he has attended the Police Station and which
fact is admitted by the Investigating Officer, there

¶33

5 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶34

was no reason for the present petitioner not to
attend the Police Station subsequently.

¶35

09.The petitioner would submit that even

¶36

today he is ready to attend the Police Station and
on instructions from the Police Station Officer Mr.
A.A. Jagatkar, the learned A.P.P. would submit that
the petitioner be directed to attend Police Station,
Harsul and the Counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. B.
Narwade on instructions from the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner would report to the
Harsul Police Station on every Thursday and every
Tuesday till the culmination of Trial. The
petitioner shall attend the Police Station from
11.00 AM to 1.00 PM on every Thursday and Tuesday
till the culmination of trial. It leads to me to
pass following order;

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i)The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶39

(ii)The Order passed by learned Additional

¶40

Sessions Judge, Aurangabad granting the
Cri. Application No. 235/2018 filed on

¶41

behalfoftheprosecutionfor

¶42

cancellation of bail is hereby set aside,

¶43

6 31 CrWP 492-2019

¶44

the petitioner shall be on bail during

¶45

trial.

¶46

(iii) The said application for cancellation
of bail is rejected.

¶47

(iv) The Order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cri. Appln
No. 140 of 2018 is hereby maintained.

¶48

(v)The petitioner is directed to attend the Police Station, Harsul of Aurangabad on every Friday and Tuesday till culmination of trial in between 11.00 AM to 1.00 PM instead of Police Station, Cidco.

¶49

(vi)With this, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Rule made absolute on above terms.

¶50

 [V.M. DESHPANDE]
 JUDGE

¶51

Dahibhate/-

Sudam S/O. Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudam S/O. Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devyani Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sanstha through President Sundarbai Sakharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gajanan Ananda Chikatwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others