Bombay High CourtAPPLN/83/2015dismissed

The State Of Maharashtra, Through Dy. Superintendent Of Police, A.C.B. Bhandara v. Natwarlal Premlal Rinayat

2016-02-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 appln83.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.83/2015 The State of Maharashtra, through Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhandara ..Versus..

Natwarlal Premlal Rinayat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - 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 : 16.2.2016 Heard Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the applicant and Shri R.A. Chandurkar, advocate for the non-applicant. The applicant is granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court by the order dated 15th September, 2015. The challenge on behalf of the applicant is that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting pre-arrest bail is cryptic and is not supported by any reason. Be that as it may, the learned advocate for the non-applicant has pointed out that after the order is passed on 15th September, 2015, the non-applicant has co-operated with the investigation and has attended the

2 appln83.15 police station on 16th September, 2015, 17th October, 2015, 19th October, 2015, 25th November, 2015 and 8th December, 2015. It is further submitted that Kotwal Chachne who is co-accused and according to the prosecution who has received the amount of Rs.5,000/- on behalf of the non-applicant is granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the applicant for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the non-applicant.

Shri T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the voice sample has to be collected for the purposes of investigation. Needless to say that the applicant can summon the non-applicant for further investigation and the non-applicant will be bound to co-operate with the investigation as per law.

With the above observations, the application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.