Respective counsel submit that during the pendency of their
applications seeking pre-arrest bail, investigating agency has issued
proclamation against them under section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. In fact, when the applications under section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are pending before any court of Law, it cannot
be said that the accused are absconding. It only means that the accused are
evading arrest to take their applications under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to its logical end. In view of this, proclamation
issued against present applicants shall not be acted upon during the pendency
of the hearing of these applications.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2016
Nitin Chandrrkant Kadam
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 30th NOVEMBER, 2016.
1) Respective counsel submit that during the pendency of their
applications seeking pre-arrest bail, investigating agency has issued
proclamation against them under section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. In fact, when the applications under section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are pending before any court of Law, it cannot
be said that the accused are absconding. It only means that the accused are
evading arrest to take their applications under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to its logical end. In view of this, proclamation
issued against present applicants shall not be acted upon during the pendency
of the hearing of these applications. It is further pertinent to note that
application seeking pre-arrest bail filed by the principal accused Mr. Vikas
Dhas, P.I. was rejected by this Court on 07/09/2016 and till today, he has not
been apprehended by the police. It is also submitted across the bar, on
instructions that principal accused had approached the Sessions Court under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without there being any
change of circumstances.
2) The learned APP submits that as on today, she would not be able to
make any submissions for not arresting the principal accused. This is a case of
custodial death. The deceased had died in the custody of the police. The
guardians of law have committed a heinous offence which shocks the
conscience of the society, which believes the police to be the guardian of their
life and liberty.
3) The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that they are
rank juniors. On the date of the incident, they were posted at the police
chowki and were discharging the official duties allotted to them. They were
fully aware that some incident is taking place in the police chowki, however,
they had only presumed to be a mode of interrogation and therefore, had not
reported to any other senior officers.
4) The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application Nos. 1880 of 2016, 1896 of 2016, 1848 of 2016 makes a
categorical statement on instructions that applicants in the said applications
had in fact left the police chowki after the custody of the deceased was
handed over to the A.P.I. Kankadki and therefore, he was not even aware of
what has happened after the custody was given. The learned counsel for the
applicants, upon instructions submits that they would co-operate with the
investigating agency to the best of their capacity.
5) The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1834 of 2016 has also submitted on instructions that the
applicant had left the police chowki as his duty hours were over. The incident
had taken place at night. The principal accused had fabricated the material to
plead alibi. However, upon scrutiny of papers of investigation meticulously,
this Court had assigned reasons for rejecting the application under section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also submitted at the Bar that
the applicants who are fresh recruits, having put in service for just about two
years are being punished for the misdeeds of their seniors.
6) In fact, in the present applications also a notice was issued to the
learned APP and and the applications were due to be heard on 15/11/2016.
There were proclamations issued against present applicants and therefore, this
Court had not granted ad-interim relief. However, as on today, upon scrutiny
of papers annexed to the petition, submissions advanced across the bar and
the act attributed to the present applicants, this Court is of the opinion that the
applicants herein deserve ad-interim relief as they have undertaken to cooperate
with the investigating agency to the best of their capacity.
7) It is made clear that the co-accused i.e. Mr. Vikas Dhas, Mr. Kankadki
and Mr. Koli shall not, in any way claim parity with present applicants as the
papers of investigation would clearly show that the deceased was in exclusive
custody of three persons named herein above.
O R D E R
(i) By way of ad-interim relief, in the event of arrest, applicants be
enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with
one or more sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Applicants shall attend the office of Dy.S.P., C.I.D. at Satara from
01/12/2016 to 08/12/2016 between 4.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. It is made clear
that the statements of the present applicants be recorded by the C.I.D.
Investigating Officer and not any other officer.
(iii) It is also made clear that police personnel except State C.I.D. shall not
interfere with the interrogation of the present applicants.
8) The learned APP submits that she would communicate this order to the
State C.I.D. i.e. Investigating Officer.
9) Stand over to 14/12/2016 at 4.00 p.m.
10) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
applications seeking pre-arrest bail, investigating agency has issued
proclamation against them under section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. In fact, when the applications under section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are pending before any court of Law, it cannot
be said that the accused are absconding. It only means that the accused are
evading arrest to take their applications under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to its logical end. In view of this, proclamation
issued against present applicants shall not be acted upon during the pendency
of the hearing of these applications.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1880 OF 2016
Nitin Chandrrkant Kadam
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 30th NOVEMBER, 2016.
1) Respective counsel submit that during the pendency of their
applications seeking pre-arrest bail, investigating agency has issued
proclamation against them under section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. In fact, when the applications under section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are pending before any court of Law, it cannot
be said that the accused are absconding. It only means that the accused are
evading arrest to take their applications under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 to its logical end. In view of this, proclamation
issued against present applicants shall not be acted upon during the pendency
of the hearing of these applications. It is further pertinent to note that
application seeking pre-arrest bail filed by the principal accused Mr. Vikas
Dhas, P.I. was rejected by this Court on 07/09/2016 and till today, he has not
been apprehended by the police. It is also submitted across the bar, on
instructions that principal accused had approached the Sessions Court under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without there being any
change of circumstances.
2) The learned APP submits that as on today, she would not be able to
make any submissions for not arresting the principal accused. This is a case of
custodial death. The deceased had died in the custody of the police. The
guardians of law have committed a heinous offence which shocks the
conscience of the society, which believes the police to be the guardian of their
life and liberty.
3) The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that they are
rank juniors. On the date of the incident, they were posted at the police
chowki and were discharging the official duties allotted to them. They were
fully aware that some incident is taking place in the police chowki, however,
they had only presumed to be a mode of interrogation and therefore, had not
reported to any other senior officers.
4) The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application Nos. 1880 of 2016, 1896 of 2016, 1848 of 2016 makes a
categorical statement on instructions that applicants in the said applications
had in fact left the police chowki after the custody of the deceased was
handed over to the A.P.I. Kankadki and therefore, he was not even aware of
what has happened after the custody was given. The learned counsel for the
applicants, upon instructions submits that they would co-operate with the
investigating agency to the best of their capacity.
5) The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1834 of 2016 has also submitted on instructions that the
applicant had left the police chowki as his duty hours were over. The incident
had taken place at night. The principal accused had fabricated the material to
plead alibi. However, upon scrutiny of papers of investigation meticulously,
this Court had assigned reasons for rejecting the application under section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also submitted at the Bar that
the applicants who are fresh recruits, having put in service for just about two
years are being punished for the misdeeds of their seniors.
6) In fact, in the present applications also a notice was issued to the
learned APP and and the applications were due to be heard on 15/11/2016.
There were proclamations issued against present applicants and therefore, this
Court had not granted ad-interim relief. However, as on today, upon scrutiny
of papers annexed to the petition, submissions advanced across the bar and
the act attributed to the present applicants, this Court is of the opinion that the
applicants herein deserve ad-interim relief as they have undertaken to cooperate
with the investigating agency to the best of their capacity.
7) It is made clear that the co-accused i.e. Mr. Vikas Dhas, Mr. Kankadki
and Mr. Koli shall not, in any way claim parity with present applicants as the
papers of investigation would clearly show that the deceased was in exclusive
custody of three persons named herein above.
O R D E R
(i) By way of ad-interim relief, in the event of arrest, applicants be
enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with
one or more sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Applicants shall attend the office of Dy.S.P., C.I.D. at Satara from
01/12/2016 to 08/12/2016 between 4.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. It is made clear
that the statements of the present applicants be recorded by the C.I.D.
Investigating Officer and not any other officer.
(iii) It is also made clear that police personnel except State C.I.D. shall not
interfere with the interrogation of the present applicants.
8) The learned APP submits that she would communicate this order to the
State C.I.D. i.e. Investigating Officer.
9) Stand over to 14/12/2016 at 4.00 p.m.
10) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment