Praful Dashrath Patil @ Chotya v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4231 OF 2021 Shri. Praful Dashrath Patil @ Chotya .. Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents None for the Petitioner.

Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

th MARCH, 2023.

DATE : 29 P.C. :

1.

None for the petitioner. On the last date i.e. on 15.03.2023 also, nobody was present for the petitioner.

2.

Learned APP points out that the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court and the order of rejection of the Anticipatory Bail Application of the Trial Court has been confirmed by the High Court and since then, the petitioner is absconding. According to her, the petitioner is avoiding to prosecute the petition.

3.

Whatever may be the intention of the petitioner in consistently remaining absent before this Court either personally or through his by AARTI G PALKAR Date:

2023.03.31 15:25:44 +0530 learned counsel, there is another aspect of the matter which is required AARTI PALKAR Aarti Palkar 1/2 36.WP.4231.2021.doc

to be considered by this Court in order to decide as to whether or not there is any prima facie substance in the petition. With that view in mind, we have perused the FIR and other documents available on record. We find that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner, which has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation justifying registration of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide Crime No.265 of 2020 with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane. That being so, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ] Aarti Palkar 2/2 36.WP.4231.2021.doc