Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
Chowgule And Company Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Public Prosecutor State Of Goa – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.618 OF 2024(F)
Bail - Anticipatory Bail Applications - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 531, Section 482 - The court interpreted the repeal and savings clause of the new Act, determining that pending investigations and applications under the old Code of Criminal Procedure would continue to apply, thus allowing for anticipatory bail applications under the new provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two anticipatory bail applications arising from the same FIR, registered before the enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain the bail application under the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Whether the investigation should continue under the old Code or the new Act, and whether the bail application filed after the new Act's enactment could be considered under the new provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the saving clause in the new Act preserved the applicability of the old Code for pending investigations, and that the inherent power to grant interim bail exists under the new provisions.
Final Decision: The court ruled that the investigation would continue under the old Code, the bail application would be governed by the new Act, and the court has the power to grant interim bail.
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard Mr. Rizwan Merchant along with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Ramiz Shaikh, Mr. Nihal Kamat, Mr. Harshil Gandhi and Mr. Kishan Kavlekar, learned Advocates for the Petitioner; Mr. Shailendra Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Shivan Desai along with Mr. Varun Bhandanker and Ms. Maria Viegas, learned Advocates for the Respondent No.3 in WPCR (F) No.618/2024 and Mr. Parag Rao along with Mr. Akhil Parrikar, Ms. Sowmya Drago and Mr. Ajay Menon, learned Advocates for Respondent No.3 in WPCR(F) No. 619/2024
2. Both these petitions are taken up together as it raises the same grounds and the prayers in connection with two anticipatory bail applications filed by the Respondents arising out of the same First Information Report (FIR).
3. Rule.
4. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
5. Both the matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties as it raises an important question regarding the interpretation of the new laws introduced by the Parliament which came into effect from 01.07.2024.
6. In the above petitions, the interpretation with regard to the provisions of the New Act/Code i.e. ‘Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’, and more particularly, the repeal provision under Section 531 of the said Sanhita is under consideration.
7. The Petitioners in both these petitions is a Private Limited Company who filed a complaint against the Private Respondent on the allegations that said Private Respondents committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477A r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for Short). The First Information Report was registered on 14.06.2024 by the Economic Offences Cell Goa.
8. The Private Respondents/Respondent No.3 preferred an application for bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Sessions Court Panaji, which was filed on 19.06.2024. While dealing with such application and on 20.06.2024, the learned Sessions Judge North Goa Panaji granted ad-interim bail to Respondent No. 3 till the next date, i.e. on 24.06.2024. The Petitioners filed an intervention application before the learned Sessions Court at Panaji on 24.06.2024 by opposing the bail application. Similarly, the Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application in the said bail matter on 25.06.2024 thereby raising maintainability of bail application before Panaji Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.
9. It so happened that on 05.07.2024, learned Sessions Court North Goa Panaji allowed the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioner thereby holding that the said court is not having jurisdiction. However, while deciding such aspect, learned Session Judge Panaji granted protection to the Respondent No.3 for a period of 72 hours.
10. The Respondent No. 3 then preferred an application for bail in anticipation of arrest before learned Session Court at South Goa Margao on 06.07.2024. On the same day, the Respondent No.3 prayed for an ad-interim protection, however, the Court observed that since learned Sessions Judge Panaji granted such protection for a period of 72 hours which continued while filing the application for bail no further order is necessary and issued notices. However, on 08.07.2024, the Petitioner intervened in the said application before learned Session Judge South Goa Margao which application was kept pending as on date. Learned Sessions Court at Margao vide impugned order dated 08.07.2024 granted interim bail to Respondent No.3 which is challenged under the present proceedings.
11. Mr. Merchant learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners strenuously urged that first of all new Code, herein after referred as ‘Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’ (‘BNSS’ 2023 for short) came into force from 01.07.2024 and as per the repeal provisions, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. 1973 for short) stands repealed. He would submit that from
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
