Sunanda Mohan Bhute v. State Of Maharashtra

`911_ABA_2133_24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2133 OF 2024 Sunanda Mohan Bhute ...

Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate for applicant.

Mr. Tanveer G. Khan, APP for respondent-State. Mr. R. B. Chougule, H.C., Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, District Solapur Rural.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE :

04th SEPTEMBER, 2024 P.C. :

.

This is an application filed on 29.07.2024 for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.0182 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024 registered at Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, District Solapur Rural for offences under Sections 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2.

On 20.08.2024, when the application was listed for consideration, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant desires to engage another advocate. On that basis, the hearing of the application was adjourned till today. It was made clear that no interim order was passed in favour of the applicant.

3.

Today, when the application is called out for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant reiterated the same request that the applicant desires to engage another advocate. by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

2024.09.04 18:46:48 +0530 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI

`911_ABA_2133_24.doc 4.

The learned APP, on instructions of Head Constable Mr. Chougule present in Court, submits that the applicant has filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court today, concerning the very same FIR. 5.

This Court has gathered an impression that the applicant has moved the present application, kept it pending and has sought adjournment after adjournment, only to somehow avoid being arrested, if the investigating officer finds it necessary to arrest the applicant. The offences registered against the applicant are serious in nature. Filing of an application for anticipatory bail today before the Sessions Court with regard to the very same FIR, further indicates the tactics being adopted by the applicant to somehow keep legal proceedings pending before the Court, avoid cooperation with the investigation and to avert his arrest. 6.

In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no indulgence can be shown to such an applicant accused. 7.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 2/2