← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4991/2014others disposed off

Ramablak @ Lorik Tribhuvannath Mishra v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

2015-03-04Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

914 wp 4991-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2014 Ramablak@ Lorik Tribhuvannath Mishra ..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Respondents Mr. R.A.Singhi/b. M.P.Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.

DATED : MARCH 04, 2015.

P.C.

1.

Heard. This petition is filed for taking appropriate legal action against the respondent no.3 for committing contempt of court by disobeying the order and direction dated 2nd August, 2013. Criminal Bail Application No.1158 of 2013 filed by the petitioner and two others was disposed of by order dated 2nd August, 2013. The petitioner was refused bail. However, the other two were granted bail. The petitioner has also been subsequently granted bail by learned Single Judge of this Court on 4th August, 2014 in Criminal Bail Application No.1329 of 2014.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that direction pps

914 wp 4991-14.doc contained in para 2 of order dated 2.8.2013 in Bail Application No.1158 of 2013 are not complied with by the respondent no.3. 3.

Mr.Yagnik, learned APP having taken instructions from the respondent no.3 states that said directions are already complied with. The statement of learned APP is supported by the document which is annexed by the petitioner at Exhibit H to the petition. The said document is a letter by the petitioner's Advocate to Senior Inspector of Police, Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. The letter makes reference to two medical certificates. However, complaint is made that the same are not eligible. The letter also refers to the chargesheet which runs into 129 pages. As chargesheet is already filed, the petitioner has remedy to approach the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.

Taking the overall facts into consideration, we do not find any case for contempt. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently no action is required to be taken against the respondent no.3.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) pps