Sau. Kranti Atul Patil v. Shri. Atul Ramesh Patil And Others

1 Cr. Apln. 215.2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2015 Sau Kranti Atul Patil .... APPLICANT V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... RESPONDENTS .............................

Mr. Shrikant S.Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. M.M.Nerlikar, A.P.P. for R- 10 State.

Mr. N.L.Choudhary, Advocate for R - 1 to 9.

..............................

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : 24th MARCH, 2015 .............................

PER COURT :

1.

This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule by Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2014, by which the learned Judge of the Court below has granted anticipatory bail in their favour in connection with Crime No. 109/2014 registered with Deopur police station, Dhule for the offences punishable u/s 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 Cr. Apln. 215.2015 2.

Heard Mr. Shrikant S.Patil, the learned counsel for Applicant in extenso.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged before this Court that the learned Court below has committed mistake in granting anticipatory bail in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 9. He submitted that the F.I.R. clearly spells out the role to each of the present respondent and, therefore, ought not to have been granted the anticipatory bail.

4.

The F.I.R. shows the allegation on the part of the first informant against respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The learned trial Court while granting anticipatory bail in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 9, has observed that the investigation was almost in the last stage and in that view of the matter, the learned trial Court imposed condition upon the respondents that they should attend the police station and Investigating Officer as and when will be called for the purpose of investigation.

5.

It is not the case of the learned A.P.P., who represents respondent No. 10 that in view of the direction given by the learned Judge while granting anticipatory bail, they have flouted the condition imposed upon them. 6.

By now, the parameters for cancellation of bail are completely settled. In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant tried to impress upon this Court that

3 Cr. Apln. 215.2015 the order of the Court below is illegal and, therefore, needs to be quashed.

7.

I have perused the F.I.R. To me, the learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in granting the anticipatory bail in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 9, looking to the nature of the accusation made against them. 8.

In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Application is merit-less and it is dismissed. [V.M.DESHPANDE, J.] KNP/Cr. Apln. 215.2015