Gyanendra Shakal Narayan Singh vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Dr. Gyanendra S.N. Singh .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with the offence registered with Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai under C.R. No.196/2007 punishable under section 498-A, 323, 506, 504, 379, 377 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier application made by the applicant to the Sessions Court (Application No.24/2008) for bail has been rejected by an order dated 18th January 2008. The complainant is the wife of Arvind Pawar. The applicant is a friend of Arvind Pawar. In the FIR lodged by the complainant on 5th November 2007, she alleged that the complainant and her husband lived together for 5-6 months after the marriage. Thereafter there were quarrels between them. Hence she left the house. Thereafter her husband has been harassing her and on 1st October 2007 Arvind along with his three friends including the present applicant came to her house, assaulted her and took away gold mangalsutra weighing about 1 tola and 2 gold bangles weighing about 2 1/2 tolas. The complainant further alleges that in the past her husband had unnatural intercourse with her though she had not informed this to anyone. There is no allegation that the applicant is in any way concerned with the act of unnatural intercourse allegedly committed by the husband. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in assuming that the present applicant is also a party to the unnatural offence punishable under section 379 of the I.P.C. The only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the husband of the complainant on 1st October 2007 when she was allegedly robbed of one gold mangalsutra and 2 gold bangles. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the incident. There is a delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR after the alleged robbing. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall not make any contact with the complainant and shall not in any way make any inducement or threat to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall attend the concerned police station as and when summoned by the police for the purpose of interrogation/ investigation. This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicant, if he so desires, may apply for regular bail before the regular court. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Shri Abdul Rahim Tantray. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. S.V.Kotwal i/b. S.S.Bhandary for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 2nd May 2008. P.C.: ---- . Heard. Perused record. The relaxation sought to be prayed by the applicant was already granted under order dated 1st February, 2008. The applicant has availed the benefit of that order. There cannot be successive relaxation in every alternate month. Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE