Bombay High CourtAPPLN/219/2013others disposed off

Vijay Hiralal Bhatia v. Anil Hardasmal Kamra And ANR

2015-02-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice M.L. Tahaliyani2 pages

spb/ 915apl219-13.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2013 Vijay Hiralal Bhatia ... Applicant.

(Org.Complainant) V/s.

Anil Hardasmal Kamra & Anr.

... Respondents.

--- Mr. S.K. Gawda, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

--- CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2015 P.C. :

This is an application filed by the applicantoriginal complainant in the FIR No. I-54 of 2012 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar-5, for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1/accused by the learned additional Sessions Judge at Kalyan. Respondent no.1 was apprehending arrest in the above said crime for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 307, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He moved the learned additional Sessions Judge. The learned additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and after having gone through the papers, came to be conclusion that there was no material against the respondent no. 1 and that he was entitled Borey 1/2

spb/ 915apl219-13.sxw for pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the order impugned was passed in the anticipatory bail application no. 203 of 2013. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant (complainant) and the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 (accused)-Anil H. Kamra. I have gone through the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Learned Advocate for the applicant has not been able to show anything on record to connect the respondent no.1 with the alleged offences. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that respondent no.1 was a prime conspirator of the alleged offences. However, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any material which can prima facie establish that respondent no. 1 was a prime conspirator. I do not find any fault in the order passed by the additional Sessions Judge. Criminal application stands dismissed.

(JUDGE) .....

Borey 2/2