Sumedh Anant Joshi v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3266 OF 2023 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1853 OF 2023 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2023.09.12 18:30:14 +0530 Sumedh Anant Joshi ...Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Datta Mane, a/w Prasad Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the State.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:

11th SEPTEMBER, 2023 ORDER:- 1.

This is an application for extension of transit anticipatory protection/bail granted by this Court by an order 6th July, 2023.

2.

By the said order, this Court had granted transit anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.12 of 2021, registered with CID Police Station, East District, Sikkim, for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was further directed that the said order shall remain in operation 1/3

for four weeks in the State of Maharashtra. The Court had noted that there was a limited prayer for transit bail for four weeks.

3.

The said period of four weeks expired by 3rd August, 2023. The applicant seeks further extension of time. I have perused averments in the application. It is contended that he could not approach the jurisdictional Court as he was unwell. 4.

The purpose of grant of transit anticipatory bail is to protect the liberty of a person for a limited period so as to facilitate him to approach the jurisdictional Court. In the instant case, the interim protection has expired more than a month ago. There is no justifiable reason to entertain the prayer for extension of time as the very purpose of granting transit anticipatory bail would be subverted as it would operate for an extended period of time and would partake the character of protection granted by the jurisdictional Court. Failure on the part of the applicant to approach the jurisdictional Court within the period for which interim protection was granted can only be at the peril of the applicant. The Court cannot lend assistance to such applicant.

2/3

5.

Hence, the application for extension does not deserve to be entertained and, thus, stands rejected.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3