Sundesh Subhash Ranaware v. State Of Maharashtra

909_ABA_2319_24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2319 OF 2024 Sundesh Subhash Ranaware ...

Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. Rahul Kulkarni for applicant (through video-conferencing). Ms. Rutuja Anil Ambekar, APP for respondent-State (through videoconferencing). Ms. Pooja Bajirao Patil, PSI, Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune City. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE :

04th SEPTEMBER, 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2.

This is effectively the second application filed by applicant for anticipatory bail, in connection with FIR No.0510 of 2021 dated 30.06.2021, registered at Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune City for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Sectionn 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3.

The FIR was registered more than 2 years ago and the first application for anticipatory bail bearing Anticipatory Bail Application No.163 of 2022, was filed before this Court in the year 2022. By order dated 02.05.2022, this Court (Coram: Vinay Joshi, J) dismissed the said application on merits, rendering a finding that dishonest intention of the applicant has emerged per se from the record.

by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

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

909_ABA_2319_24.doc 4.

The applicant challenged the said order in the Supreme Court by filing SLP No.10326 of 2022, which was dismissed by order dated 23.03.2023, thereby confirming the order of this Court.

5.

It is surprising that despite the aforesaid orders, the police failed to apprehend the applicant and he is roaming freely. 6.

In this backdrop, the applicant has now filed the present application, reiterating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. This is nothing but an attempt to seek review of the earlier orders on merits, with no ground to demonstrate any reason as to why this Court should entertain the present application. This is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. 7.

This Court is constrained to observe that the applicant has been encouraged to move the present application because even the police appears to have failed in its duty to take appropriate steps in the matter. 8.

The material on record brought to the notice of this Court indicates the seriousness of this case, as the statements recorded during the course of investigation, show that at least 14 more persons have come with identical grievance against the applicant.

9.

No case is made out for entertaining the present application. Hence, it is dismissed.

(MANISH PITALE, J) 2/2 Priya Kambli