Bombay High CourtAPPLN/2/2016dismissed

State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. P.S. Katol, Nagpur v. Kamlesh S/O Vitthalrao Mahajan

2016-03-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 appln2.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.2/2016 State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer Police Station Katol, Distt. Nagpur ..Versus..

Kamlesh S/o Vitthalrao Mahajan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 7.3.2016 Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the applicant - State of Maharashtra.

The State of Maharashtra has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17th November, 2015 granting pre-arrest bail to the non-applicant be set aside and the pre-arrest bail granted to the non-applicant in the event of arrest in crime registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 292, 354(A), 501, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology Act, be cancelled. The cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered all the relevant material on the record while passing the order dated 17th November, 2015 and

2 appln2.16 granted pre-arrest bail to the non-applicant. The accusations against the non-applicant are that he is responsible for preparation and display of the objectionable C.D. of his divorced wife. The case of the applicant is not that the non-applicant has misused the liberty. The applicant has not been able to show that as the non-applicant is released on pre-arrest bail it has hampered the investigation and that the custody of non-applicant is required for further investigation. In view of the above, I am not inclined to consider the prayer made in the application for setting aside the order dated 17th November, 2015 and for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the non-applicant. The application is dismissed. JUDGE Tambaskar.