Gunwant S/O. Buddhidas Meshram (In Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Bramhapuri Dist. Chandrapur

ba1185.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1185/2017 Gunwant s/o Buddhidas Meshram ..vs..State of Maharashtra thr. PSO P.S. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. N. S. Giripunje, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2017 Heard Mr. Giripunje, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Jawade, A.P.P. for the non applicant-State Though the application is coming for the first time, it can be disposed of without there being reply from the prosecution.

The applicant is prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 343, 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 142/2015 registered with Police Station, Bramhapuri.

The competent Court has released the applicant on bail. However, it was noticed by the Courts below that the applicant has formed the habit of not remaining present on the given dates before the learned Judge of the trial Court, consequently the trial was obstructed. On numerous occasions, the non bailable warrants were issued by the learned Magistrate for procuring presence of the applicant. However, subsequently, the applications for cancellation of the said non bailable warrants were filed by present

ba1185.17.odt applicant and the Court below, by taking a lenient view, used to cancel the non bailable warrants. Still, the applicant has not mend his ways and has continued his habit of not remaining present before the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the non bailable warrant was issued and he was taken into custody.

The applicant has filed an application for bail before the learned Sessions Court vide Misc. Criminal Application No.1297/2017. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, while observing the past conduct of the present applicant, has rejected the application for bail and in my view, rightly so. Hence, the present application is filed. The learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken and he assures this Court that he will remain present before the Court.

There is a limit of giving assurances on the part of the applicant. Previously also, when the applications for cancellation of the non bailable warrants were filed, those were considered sympathetically and were allowed. However, it appears that the applicant has taken the law for a ride. The applicant, it appears that has a scant respect to the law. When the applicant was released on bail, it was his duty to attend the Court. No case is made out by the applicant for grant of the discretionary relief. The application is therefore rejected.

JUDGE kahale