← Library
Bombay High CourtAPPP/279/2013others disposed off

The State Of Maharashtra v. Shashikant Kashinath Wagh And ORS

2015-07-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Thipsay2 pages

3.APPPNo.2792013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.279 OF 2013 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1221 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra ...

Applicant V/s.

Shashikant Kashinath Wagh & Ors....

Respondents .....

Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Applicant/State.

Mr.Omkar Nagvekar i/b. Mr.Chetan Damre, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

....

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.

DATED :

1st JULY 2015 P.C.

1.

The respondents were granted anticipatory bail by this Court by an order dated 15/06/2013. By the said order respondents were directed to report to the police station every day between 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., till the filing of the charge sheet. This application for cancellation of bail granted to them has been made by the State of Maharashtra on 4th March 2013, alleging that the respondents failed to remain present before the Investigating Officer everyday, as ordered by this Court.

Gaikwad RD 1/2

3.APPPNo.2792013 2.

On how many days the respondents failed to remain present before the Investigating Officer, has not been specified in the application.

3.

I find that the condition requiring reporting to the police station everyday was to remain effective only till the filing of the charge sheet. It is not in dispute that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter on 15th January 2015. It is stated before me that the respondents are remaining present in the Court. 4.

As aforesaid, on how many days the respondents failed to report to the police station has not been mentioned in the application. It is today admitted before me that it is not that the respondents never attended the police station, as directed. 5.

Since the investigation is already over, charge sheet has already been filed and regular case has been registered against the respondents, there is no question of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents.

6.

The application is rejected.

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.) Gaikwad RD 2/2