Dattatray Bapu Dighe v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

7-REVN-211-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date:

2024.09.05 19:58:55 +0530 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2024 Dattatray Bapu Dighe ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

***** Mr.Pankaj Sayajirao Shinde:- Advocate for Applicant.

Ms.Sangita E. Phad:- APP for Respondent No.1-State.

***** CORAM :

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

4th SEPTEMBER 2024 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned APP.

2.

She has invited my attention to the Certificate of Registration issued by the Authorities in United States of America (Page No.69). She has also invited my attention to the letter by the Power of Attorney Holder on Page No.61.

3.

According to her, the registration is not mandatory. For that purpose, she relied upon the observations in case of Dhiraj Dharamdas Satish Sangar 1/2

7-REVN-211-2024.doc Dewani v/s. M/s. Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Others1 and more specifically, Para No.26.

4.

By way of Reply, learned Advocate for the Applicant invited my attention to the following documents:- (a) Letter given by Deputy Commissioner of Police asking the Officers to register the FIR. (Page No.60).

According to Mr.Shinde, the Police have not registered the FIR immediately and this is a violation of the observations in Lalita Kumari v/s. Govt. of U.P. and Others2. (b) The arrest memo on Page No.47 and bail granted by the Police on Page No.51. According to him, the offence is non bailable and cognizable hence, Police cannot grant a bail. (c) Additionally, he relied upon the observations in case of B.K.Dani v/s. State of M.P.3.

5.

Matter is closed for orders.

[S. M. MODAK, J.] 2012(3) ALL MR 209 [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 2004 0 Supreme (MP) 158 Satish Sangar 2/2