Dhareppa Dhondappa Anjutagi v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

1/3 11 IA-1396-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1396 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2022 Dhareppa Dhondappa Anjutagi .. Applicant

Versus

State Of Maharashtra And Anr .. Respondent ...

Mr. Ritesh Thobde for the applicant.

Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, appointed advocate for respondent no.2.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 1st NOVEMBER, 2023 P.C:- The interim application seek modification of the condition imposed on the applicant while he was released on bail on 2/02/2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2022. On facing the accusations under Section 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in CR No. 218 of 2022, he was directed to be released on bail with the following condition being imposed upon him amongst other:

"(ii) After his release from jail, Appellant shall not enter jurisdiction of Mandrup Police Station till conclusion of trial except for attending concerned Police Station till conclusion of trial except

2/3 11 IA-1396-2023.doc for attending concerned Police Station as has been directed hereinafter;"

The counsel for the applicant seek relaxation from the said condition as according to him this is causing great inconvenience. Apart from this, his submission is that the complainant do not reside in jurisdiction of Mandrup Police Station and in fact he is resident of Karnataka. I have even heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the submission is specifically denied by him. It is his specific submission that the complainant has a shop there and he continue to run the shop.

The imposition of the above condition is in the specific background, which is recorded in paragraph no. 6 of the order, which reads thus:

"6.

Learned advocate appointed to represent Respondent no.2, on instructions, submitted that, close relatives of Appellant are administering threats to him and his brother for either compounding the offence or settle the issue otherwise Respondent no.2 will have to face serious consequences. He therefore submitted that, Appellant may not be released on bail."

In the wake of the above, since not a long period has elapsed, when the applicant was put to the condition and the liberty was secured for him by order dated 2/02/2023, I see no justification for him, wriggling out of it.

Merely the ground that he has three women dependent upon him, cannot justify the modification of the condition as the applicant was much conscious of this scenario on 2/2/2023 also, but when the question came of he being

3/3 11 IA-1396-2023.doc conferred with the liberty, he agreed to the said condition and now he cannot seek its modification, without any justiciable ground.

For this reason, the Interim Application is rejected. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)