← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/507/2022rejected

Dattatray Shivaji Danavale v. The State Of Maharashtra

2022-03-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre2 pages

(22)-ABA-507-22.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date:

2022.03.25 15:35:16 +0530 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.507 OF 2022 Mr. Dattatray Shivaji Danavale ..Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Naveen Chomal, for the Applicant.

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Rahul Garad, PSI, NRI Sagari Police Station - present. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2022 P.C.

1.

The applicant moved before the Court below seeking pre-arrest bail, which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane vide order dated 7th October, 2021. Subsequent thereto vide ABA No.2822 of 2021, prayer of the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail moved before this Court was withdrawn on 1st December, 2021. After the change in assignment, applicant preferred another application before this Court on 23rd February, 2022 alleging that the earlier bail application was withdrawn without arguing the matter on merit.

2.

I have called upon learned APP to respond to the same. APP on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court informs that the matter was argued on merit and since this BGP.

(22)-ABA-507-22.doc.

Court was not inclined to grant prayer, said application was withdrawn. As such, it appears that without there being change in circumstances, present application is taken out by the applicant. 3.

On merits of the matter, it appears that the applicant/accused is involved in serious economic offence which has far reaching implication over the economic affairs of the society. The Court is sensitive to the fact that there is enough material to infer prima facie involvement of the applicant in crime in question, wherein the case of the prosecution of requirement of custodial interrogation can be said to justified.

4.

In that view of the matter, no case for consideration is made out.

5.

The application as such stands rejected.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] BGP.