Bhushan Shridharlal Gadwal v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. P.S. Pandharkawada, Yavatmal

0712aba619.15.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.619 OF 2015 (Bhushan Shridharial Gadwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., Pandharkawada) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM : A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.

: 07 DECEMBER, 2015 Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties.

Seen impugned order dated 14/8/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur. Paragraph-2 of the said order runs as under.: " Previously on 4.6.2015 below application Exh.2 ad-interim anticipatory bail order was passed by this Court subject to material conditions mentioned in the order. Later-on it has been brought to the notice of this Court by prosecution side that the applicant is not properly abiding the terms and conditions of bail order passed below Exh.2. It is also necessary to note here that the applicant is not attending police station 0and he is also not attending Court regularly for the purpose of said application. Learned APP has presented application stating that the terms and conditions of bail order have not been followed by the applicant. The applicant

0712aba619.15.odt 2/2 is also not attending Court in this matter regularly according to condition imposed in the bail order dated 4.6.2015. Today also applicant is absent. It has also been submitted by learned APPP that the applicant is remaining absent and he is not co-operating investigating agency for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. It has also been submitted that the applicant is prime accused in this matter and his custodial interrogation is required to reach the root of the case. From the case diary and record of this case it is made clear that applicant is not remaining present in police station and before the Court for the purpose of this case. Therefore, it has been seen that applicant committed breach of the order passed below Exh.2 dated 4.6.2015...."

There is no reason to disbelieve what has stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is confirmed.

Criminal Application (ABA) No. 619 of 2015 is rejected.

JUDGE wwl