Sanket @ Satyam S/O Laxmikant Mandlik v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1681 OF 2024 Sanket @ Satyam S/o Laxmikant Mandlik ......Applicant

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra And Anr ......Respondent None for Applicant.

Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. None for Respondent No.3.

Ms. Tejaswi Pawar, P.S.I. Warjewadi Police Station, Pune City, present. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : OCTOBER 07, 2024 P.C. :

1.

None appears for the Applicant.

2.

On 27th June 2024, this Court granted interim order in favour of the Applicant, subject to specific conditions, including a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer from 1st July 2024 and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant was also directed to surrender his mobile phone to the Investigating Officer. 3.

Although there is no appearance on behalf of the Applicant today, ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL even on second call, the learned APP submits on instructions that the by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.10.07 19:43:41 +0530 Applicant has indeed appeared before the Investigating Officer on the specified date and also as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He has also surrendered his mobile phone.

1/3

4.

While granting interim relief in favour of the Applicant, this Court had observed in paragraph 8 of the interim order as follows: 8.

Considering the specific statement made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the informant were in a relationship and that now, the dispute between them is settled, it would be appropriate that the informant be made party respondent in the present application. This would assist this Court in ascertaining the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, while keeping the present application pending, this Court is inclined to grant interim relief, subject to the applicant co-operating with the investigation.

5.

It appears that Respondent No.3 has been served with notice. She is represented by an Advocate, who is also not present in Court today. 6.

It is to be noted that a Petition for quashing of the First Information Report has been filed as noted in paragraph-4 of the interim order dated 27th June 2024, wherein the first informant, i.e., Respondent No.3 has expressed that the dispute between the parties was due to misunderstanding and that the same has been settled. Perhaps for this reason, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.3 before this Court today.

7.

In any case, considering the fact that the Applicant appears to have cooperated with the Investigating, this Court is inclined to allow the Application.

8.

In view of the above, the interim order dated 27th June 2024 is confirmed and the Application is allowed.

2/3

9.

The Applicant shall continue to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. He shall not tamper with evidence and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses, or any other persons concerned with this case. 10.

The application is disposed of.

(MANISH PITALE, J.) Arun Sankpal 3/3