Ranjeetarai Bhagwanji Desai v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

Ethape 1 17.Appln.275.2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.275 OF 2018 Mr. Ranjeetrai Bhagwanji Desai .. Applicant Vs.

The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for Applicant.

Mr. R. M. Pethe, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2021 PC.

1.

The applicant is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail by DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE Date: 2021.08.06 12:34:18 +0530 DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dindoshi.

2.

The First Information Report was registered vide C.R. No. 343 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred application for anticipatory bail. Ad-interim protection was granted to them vide order dated 28.09.2017 with direction to attend the police station. While allowing the said application, it was observed that the respondents have cooperated with the police investigation. They have not

Ethape 2 17.Appln.275.2018 breached the said condition. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2018. I have also perused the interim order dated 28.09.2017. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the civil dispute and civil suit is pending between parties. Gift Deed is registered. Thus, it is apparent that there is civil dispute between parties. Custodial interrogation of the accused was not necessary.

3.

I have perused the impugned order and documents annexed to this application. Considering the nature of dispute and the impugned orders, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order granting anticipatory bail. This application is deserved to be rejected.

ORDER

Criminal Application No. 275 of 2018 stands rejected. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)