17. APL. 63-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2022

Ganesh Milind Todkari

...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for the Applicant.

Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 21

^ST JANUARY, 2022

(Through Video Conferencing)

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The applicant has impugned the order dated 29^th December,

2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which,

the learned Judge was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant as against the

applicant. The applicant has also impugned another order of the same date

i.e. 29^th December, 2021, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Solapur, rejected the applicant’s application seeking anticipatory bail, on

the ground, that the said application was not maintainable.

Wakodikar

1/4

RUPALI

RAJESH

WAKODIKAR

Digitally signed

by RUPALI

RAJESH

WAKODIKAR

Date:

2022.01.25

16:14:33

+0530

17. APL. 63-2022.doc

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there were

sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for cancellation of the non-

bailable warrant as well as for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

4.

Learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He

submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant,

pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant was not maintainable and

as such, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submits that it was

always open for the applicant to file an appropriate application seeking

cancellation of the non-bailable warrant, issued by the Trial Court, as

against the applicant.

5.

Perused the papers. From the order dated 29^th December, 2021, it

appears that on the said date, despite repeated calls, neither the accused nor

his Advocate is present. The learned Judge observed that the evidence

cannot be recorded in the absence of the applicant/accused and as such,

issued non-bailable warrant to the applicant/accused and notice to the

surety. After the non-bailable warrant was issued, another application was

filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail application. Learned Judge,

after observing that the bail bond has been forfeited and non-bailable

warrant has already been issued and hence, the application seeking

Wakodikar

2/4

17. APL. 63-2022.doc

anticipatory bail was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same.

As far as the order dated 29^th December, 2021 is concerned, the observation

of the learned Judge in the said order that, an anticipatory bail application

was not maintainable, cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, the applicant

ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable

warrant instead of filing an application seeking anticipatory bail.

6.

Without going into the merits, for the reasons for non-

appearance of the applicant/accused on the said date i.e. on 29^th December,

2021, liberty is granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application

before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant

issued to the applicant.

7.

If an application is filed seeking cancellation of the non-

bailable warrant issued by the Trial Court on 29^th December, 2021, the

learned Judge to consider the same on its own merits after hearing the

parties.

8.

Leaned APP also has no objection if the applicant is permitted

to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of his non-bailable

warrant before the Trial Court.

Wakodikar

3/4

17. APL. 63-2022.doc

9.

The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid

terms.

10.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of

the application and as such, all contentions of the applicant are kept open.

11.

All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Wakodika