Allowed

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021BA/193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application challenging the cancellation of bail. The court held that there was no cogent material showing the accused knew of the Test Identification Parade or that the NC report verified the allegation of threats, leading to a remand of the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail cancellation order set aside; applicant released on bail with conditions including non-entry into prosecutrix's village and furnishing mobile number/address.

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-193-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2021

¶5

GANESH SURESHSINGH PARDESHI

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)
)
2) ABC)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr.Aarif Ali M. Ali, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶10

Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

Mr.Nikhil Pujari, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

 RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th OCTOBER 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1The present application has been moved by the

¶16

applicant assailing the order cancelling his bail granted in Crime
No.13 of 2020 registered with Police Station Yeola City for

¶17

AVK 1/9

¶18

BA-193-2021.doc

¶19

offences punishable under Section 376-D, 107, 212, 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

2It appears from the record the the present applicant
was granted bail on 17th July 2020 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Niphad with a direction that the applicant shall
not pressurize the victim or any other witness and shall not
tamper the evidence. It further appears from record that later on
Police Station Yeola City through Dy.S.P., Manmad filed an
application against the applicant under Section 439(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to him by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, on the ground that
the present applicant committed breach of the condition of the
bail order dated 17th July 2020.

¶21

3It was alleged that the Test Identification Parade of
co-accused namely Nana @ Ravindra @ Rajendra Ramdas
Diwate was to be conducted on 7th October 2020 and when it
came to the knowledge of the applicant-accused, he allegedly

¶22

AVK 2/9

¶23

BA-193-2021.doc

¶24

visited the house of the prosecutrix on 6th October 2020, at about
9.00 p.m. and threatened the father of the prosecutrix that if he
sent the prosecutrix to Central Jail for Test Identification Parade,
he shall suffer serious consequences. Because of the threats, the
prosecutrix suffered low blood pressure and was required to be
hospitalized. Even N.C.Report bearing No.437 of 2020 came to
be registered against the applicant under Section 504 and 506 of
the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing
both the parties was pleased to allow the application and
cancelled the regular bail granted to the applicant. It is this
order which is now assailed in the present bail application.

¶25

4Mr.Ganesh Gole, learned counsel for the applicant,
submits that the bail order granted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has been cancelled arbitrarily and mechanically
without applying judicious mind. There was no cogent or
overwhelming circumstance or sufficient material to warrant an
order of cancellation of bail granted in favour of the applicant.
The learned counsel invited my attention to the letter dated 6th

¶26

AVK 3/9

¶27

BA-193-2021.doc

¶28

October 2020 addressed by the prosecutrix to the A.P.I., Yeola
Police Station, wherein she stated that much time has been
passed since the commission of the crime and filing of charge-
sheet. Since much time has been passed, she has forgotten the
facial features of the accused. She being a woman has no
support and also is not keeping well and therefore, she is not in a
position to visit the Nashik Central Jail and to participate in the
Test Identification Parade. She further pleaded that the Test
Identification Parade be not conducted at all. According to the
learned counsel the contents of this letter falsifies the whole story
of the prosecution including that of the prosecutrix. Further,
according to the learned counsel, there is no material on record
to show that the applicant was aware of the Test Identification
Parade to be carried out on 7th October 2020. The learned
counsel even showed his readiness that the applicant will not
enter within the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station till
the charge-sheet is filed.

¶29

AVK 4/9

¶30

BA-193-2021.doc

¶31

5Per contra, Mr.H.J.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other

¶32

hand, opposed the submissions by contending that the applicant
visited the house of the prosecutrix a day prior to the Test
Identification Parade and extended threats. This led to
deterioration of the health of the prosecutrix and she was
required to be hospitalized. Since there was breach of condition,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling
the bail granted in favour of the applicant. There being no merit
in the application, the same deserves to be rejected.

¶33

6Mr.Nikhil Pujari, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 / prosecutrix, reiterated the same submissions as advanced
by the learned APP and would submit that there being no merit
in the application, the same is liable to be rejected.

¶34

7First of all, I would like to refer to the letter dated 6th

¶35

October 2020 written by the prosecutrix to Shri. Yuvraj Aathre,
Assistant Police Inspector, Yeola City Police Station. I assume that
this letter was forwarded to the said A.P.I. during the day time,

¶36

AVK 5/9

¶37

BA-193-2021.doc

¶38

although it does not bear the time of receipt of the said letter.
The prosecutrix is very much clear in her mind that because of
the passage of time, not only she has fear in her mind about the
accused but she also had forgotten their facial features. She was
also clear in her mind that as she has no support and is not
keeping well, she was not in a position to travel all the way to
Nashik Centra Jail and participate in the Test Identification
Parade. She, therefore, earnestly requested to cancel the Test
Identification Parade. The above letter clearly signifies the state
of mind of the prosecutrix that she was not prepared to
participate in the Test Identification Parade for a number of
reasons assigned in her letter.

¶39

8As against above, it is alleged that on the very day i.e.
on 6th October 2020, at about 9 p.m., the applicant visited the
house of the prosecutrix and extended threats to her father that if
he allowed his daughter to participate in the Test Identification
Parade, then he would see them.

¶40

AVK 6/9

¶41

BA-193-2021.doc

¶42

9I have also gone through the N.C.Report No.437 of

¶43

2020 filed by the prosecutrix on record. The same appears to
have been filed on 7th October 2020 at about 1.20 p.m.
Interestingly, the alleged threats were given by the applicant on
6th October 2020 at about 9.00 p.m. Why the N.C.Report came to
be lodged so belatedly is nowhere explained by the prosecution.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that whether the
contents of the N.C.Report were indeed verified by the concerned
Police Station or not before registering the same.

¶44

10Assuming for the sake of argument that the applicant-
accused indulged in extending threats but then there is no cogent
or convincing material on record to show that the applicant was
knowing that the Test Identification Parade was to be carried out
on 7th October 2020 wherein the prosecutrix was to remain
present to identify the accused.

¶45

11In my considered opinion, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate all these facts and also the

¶46

AVK 7/9

¶47

BA-193-2021.doc

¶48

application in proper perspective leading to the passing of an
erroneous order of cancellation of bail. For the aforesaid reasons,
I cannot persuade myself to accept the impugned order and
rather would like to set aside the same by allowing the present
application. Hence the following order :

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The application is allowed.

¶51

(ii)The order dated 20^th November 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, cancelling the bail granted to the applicant Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi qua Crime No.13 of 2020 registered with Police Station Yeola City is set aside.

¶52

(iii)The accused is ordered to be released on bail on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in like amount.

¶53

AVK 8/9

¶54

BA-193-2021.doc

¶55

(iv)It is further directed that the applicant shall not enter into the village wherein the prosecutrix resides and shall furnish his mobile number and address of residence to the Investigating Officer till the time of filing of charge-sheet.

¶56

(v)Bail before the trial Court.

¶57

(vi)The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶58

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶59

Digitally signed byARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.10.26 13:39:57 +0530

¶60

AVK 9/9

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi 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

Manoj Ramesh Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Krishna Keni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Ramesh Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rambhau Santu Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhimrao Padalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kisan Bhima Dhandre Vs the State of Maharashtra