Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Prakash D. Naik, J.
Pritesh Govardhan Chavan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1396 of 2021
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Bailable Offence - The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence is bailable, but noted that the co-accused had been arrested, remanded to custody, and subsequently granted bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a bailable offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, fearing arrest despite the bailable nature of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the Sessions Judge's rejection of the anticipatory bail application based on the bailable nature of the offence, but noted the arrest, remand, and grant of bail to the co-accused.
Issues: Apprehension of arrest for a bailable offence, rejection of anticipatory bail, arrest of co-accused, and subsequent grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that in the absence of any non-bailable offence against the applicant and considering the bailable nature of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant cannot be subjected to custody.
Final Decision: The matter was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Prakash D. Naik, J. - Issue notice to respondent. Learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent - State.
2. The apprehension of the applicant is that he is likely to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 475/2021 registered with Chikalthana Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that offence is of bailable nature. Sessions Court has rejected the application of the applicant for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence is bailable. It is submitted that co-accused Krishna Mangilal Pawar was arrested by the police in connection with the same crime and he was remanded to custody. After granting Magisterial Custody, he preferred application for bail before the Court of J.M.F.C. which has been allowed by order dated 14th October 2021. Hence, although the offence is bailable, there is apprehension that even the applicant would be arrested.
4. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence is bailable. However, it is relevant to be noted that the co-accused has been arrested, he was remanded to custody and subsequently granted bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions.
6. It is made clear that in the event that no other non-bailable offence is registered against the applicant and in the light of the fact that bailable offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. is invoked in the F.I.R., the applicant cannot be subjected to custody.
7. Stand over to 4th December 2021.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
