398.21WP.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2021

LAWRENCE S/O DORAI SWAMY

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

...

Ms.Pradyna Talekar for Talekar and Associates

for the petitioner

Mr.R.V.

Dasalkar,

APP

for

the

respondent/State.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

AND

B.U.DEBADWAR,JJ.

DATE : 24^th March, 2021

PER COURT :-

1.

The petitioner herein has put-forth

prayer clause “A”, “B” and “C” as under :-

“A. The Record and Proceedings in

Application be called from the

report filed by SDPO dated

30.12.2020 in crime no.2827 of 2020

u/s 395, 397, 324, 323, 504, 506(2),

120B of IPC 4 and 25 of Arms Act and

3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act;

B. To quash and set aside the

398.21WP.odt

2

impugned order dated 09.03.2021

passed below the report filed by

SDPO dated 21.01.2021 in Crime

No.2827 of 2020 u/s 395, 397, 324,

323, 504, 506(2), 12o-B of IPC and

section 4/25 of the Arms Act, and

under section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and

3(4) of the MCOC Act, granting

permission to arrest the petitioner,

by issuing a writ of certiorari or

any other writ order or direction as

the case may be;

C.

To quash and set aside the

impugned order dated 15.02.2021

passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions

Judge, Ahmednagar below objection

petition filed by petitioner

challenging maintainability of the

report filed by SDPO dated

21.01.2021 in crime no.2827 of 2020

u/s 395, 397, 324, 323, 504, 506(2),

120B of IPC 4 and 25 of Arms Act and

3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act

in respect of grant of permission to

arrest the accused Lawrence Durai

Swamy and for his custody, by

issuing a writ of certiorari or any

398.21WP.odt

3

other writ, order or direction as

the case may be;”

2.

By the impugned order dated

09.03.2021, the learned trial Court has

accepted the report filed by the SDPO, dated

21.01.2021 and has granted permission to

arrest the petitioner - accused. An

application filed by the petitioner

challenging the maintainability of the report

filed by the SDPO, dated 21.01.2021, has been

rejected by the learned trial Court by an

earlier order dated 15.02.2021.

3.

We have considered the streneous

submissions of the learned Advocate for the

petitioner Ms. Talekar and the learned

Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents. Ms.

Talekar requests that her notes of arguments

dated 24.03.2021, may be considered. With the

assistance of the learned Advocates, we have

gone through the voluminous record placed

before us.

4.

The record indicates that the F.I.R.

was registered on 21.11.2020, at 2.00 a.m.

(early morning). Sections 395, 397, 324, 323,

504 and 506 (2) r/w section 120-B of the

398.21WP.odt

4

I.P.C. and sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act,

were invoked. The informant is said to be an

injured person, who claimed that the driver

of the present petitioner was present when

the offence of dacoity had taken place. The

driver Arjun Thube was arrested on

24.11.2020. Since the Investigating Agency

noticed that Arjun Thube had spoken to the

petitioner herein prior to the dacoity, that

a large Police force reached the residence of

the petitioner around 6.00 a.m. on 09.12.2020

and arrested him.

5.

We are not required to refer to the

long history of litigation initiated by the

petitioner in view of the Police Department

having registered several offences against

him. The provisions of the MCOC. Act were

applied to the case of the petitioner on

25.12.2020 after he was granted bail on

23.12.2020 in the F.I.R. No.2827/2020.

Despite the bail having been granted, the

petitioner was not released since the Police

registered another new case against him,

immediately and arrested him.

6.

The issue before us in this Petition

is as to whether the trial Court has

398.21WP.odt

5

committed any error in granting leave to the

Investigating Officer to arrest the

petitioner.

7.

The petitioner had been before this

Court in Criminal Appeal No.8/