Chintan Vasantbhai Shah v. The State Of Maharashtra

ssk 1/2 Cri. APL 478/16-23/11/16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2016 Chintan Vasantbhai Shah ... Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Manas Bhatt, for the applicant.

Smt. J. S. Lohokare, A.P.P. for the State/respondent. Mr. Basit Ali Sayye, P. I., Dr. D. B. Marg Police Station, present. Coram : N. W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 23rd November, 2016 P.C. :

1.

The present applicant was granted ad-interim protection by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Crime No.115 of 2015 which was further confirmed on 11th August, 2015 with direction to attend concerned police station on every Wednesday. The order was later on modified on 15th September, 2015 directing Investigating Officer to provide attendance acknowledgement.

2.

As the present applicant has not honored the bail condition of attendance, proceedings were taken up for cancellation of bail. Same came to be allowed by the learned

ssk 2/2 Cri. APL 478/16-23/11/16 Sessions Judge vide order dated 2nd April, 2016. As such, present application.

3.

Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the default on the part of the applicant was unintentional and the applicant was granted bail on merits. He would then submits that the applicant has no disrespect for the Court order or the investigation proceedings as he has always cooperated with the Investigating Officer. According to him, if given last chance, he shall regularly attend the police station and cooperate the Investigating Officer in the matter. 4.

This Court on 26th April, 2016 has shown indulgence on the behest of the applicant and granted prayer by continuing interim protection with condition that he shall attend the police station from 27th April, 2016 till 20th May, 2016, which he has not attended.

5.

Looking to the nature of the conduct of the applicant, it could be inferred that the applicant has no respect for the Court orders or the order of law.

6.

The indulgence shown in favour of the applicant pursuant to his request was also not honoured. In view thereof no case is made out for indulgence. Hence, the application is rejected. [ N. W. SAMBRE, J.]