SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 8381

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J
Pooja Alias Pranjali Shrikant Khandare – Appellant
Versus
Shrikant Dattatraya Khandare – Respondent
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO.123 OF 2021 | CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2050 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.H.F. Pawar, Mr.Hanmant V. Patil
For the Respondents: Mr.V.D. Gunale, Mr.A.M. Phule

Cancellation of anticipatory bail is justified when new serious charges arise, indicating potential manipulation of evidence and victim's right to participate in proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Cancellation of anticipatory bail - Claim made that the bail was granted based on forged documents; predicates additional offences under IPC Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 - The applicant, in her FIR, alleges harassment and coercion post non-disclosure of respondent's first marriage - While dealing with anticipatory bail, court established the necessity of custodial interrogation due to newly added graver offences which were not previously mentioned - Investigating Officer's findings regarding falsified documents were also acknowledged and deemed significant for a re-assessment of bail. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 20)

(B) Bail - Authority of victim - The court affirmed the victim's rights to participate actively in proceedings regarding bail cancellations and underscored the need for a victim to express grievances during critical phases of the trial. (Paras 12, 23, 24)

Findings of Court:
Evidence gathered warranted cancellation of bail, establishing that respondent No.1 acted unlawfully by portraying a false narrative to obtain consent for marriage, now verified by contradicting documentation.

Issues: Determining the legitimacy of the anticipatory bail based on alleged forged documents and the necessity for custodial interrogation for further investigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the addition of serious charges necessitates a reconsideration of bail, especially when it involves potential manipulation of official records.

Result: Application for Cancellation of Bail No.123 of 2021 stands allowed.

Table of Content
1. application filed for cancellation of bail based on forged documents. (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 10)
2. victim's right to participate in bail proceedings is emphasized. (Para 7 , 12)
3. additional serious charges necessitate reconsideration of bail. (Para 14 , 20)

ORDER :

1. Present Application has been filed by the original informant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to respondent No.1 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.368 of 2021 on 3rd June 2021 (CORAM: R.G. AVACHAT, J.). It is made clear at this stage itself that the ground for cancellation of bail, mainly, is that the said order was sought by forging documents and placing the same before this Court as genuine at the time of said Anticipatory Bail Application. It is also on the basis of addition of other cognizable offences i.e. under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pawar for the applicant, learned Advocate Mr. Gunale for respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr. Phule for respondent No.2 – State.

3. It will not be out of place to mention here that Criminal Application No.2050 of 2021 has been filed for assisting APP, but it is by the first wife of respondent No.1 and she is not the informant.

4. Present informant had contended in her First Information Report (for short “FIR”) that respondent No.1, who is a high rank Government officer, was serving as Executive Engineer with Public Works Department. He was 40 years old in July 2020 and the informant was 25 years of age. Respondent No.1 suppressed that he was previously married and by concealing the subsistence of that marriage, posed himself to be a bachelor thereby the consent was obtained from the informant for the marriage. According to the informant, the marriage took place in July 2020, however it was without celebration since those were the Covid-19 Pandemic days. After the marriage the informant started cohabiting with respondent No.1 and his parents. After few months of the marriage, she suddenly came across with some papers revealing that respondent No.1 was already married. When she asked about the same, she was assaulted and thereafter the husband and the parents-in-law started harassing and ill-treating her. She lodged the FIR on 13th January 2021 vide Crime No.34 of 2021 with Udgir Rural Police Station, District-Latur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Respondent No.1 and his relatives had approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir for grant of anticipatory bail but it was rejected. Then, they all approached this Court by filing Anticipatory Bail Application No.368 of 2021 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present applicant had also filed Criminal Application No.968 of 2021 for assisting the learned APP. After hearing all the concerned Advocates and APP, this Court by detailed order, allowed the Application on 3rd June 2021.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant – informant has submitted that the offence that has been committed by respondent No.1 is serious. Even though he is the high rank Government officer, by suppressing his first marriage cheated the informant and also ill-treated and subjected her to cruelty and there is prima facie evidence against respondent No.1.

Before this Court, when the Anticipatory Bail Application was filed, it was posed that the marriage had not taken place at all. Since there was strained relationship between respondent No.1 and his earlier wife, it was told that after the dissolution of the first marriage, he would perform marriage and thereby it was tried to be stated that respondent No.1 was never in Udgir when the alleged second marriage had taken place. Respondent No.1 produced certain official documents to show that he was not present in the house of the informant, as the marriage had taken place in the house due to pandemic situati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top