Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2016
Bench: J. Chelameswar, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.9 + 11 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRLMP. 15633/2016 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 7953/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/09/2014
in CRLA No. 1594/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At
Aurangabad)
GULABRAO BABURAO DEOKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(for directions and office report)
WITH
CRL.MP.NO.17414/2016 IN SLP(Crl) No. 7535/2015
(With appln.(s) for modification of court's order and Interim
Relief and Office Report)
with
CRL.MP.NO.16548/2016 IN SLP(Crl.)No.2132/2015
Date : 11/11/2016 These applications were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh,Adv.
Mr. Rajat Kapoor,Adv.
Ms. Pushpa Devi Sikri,Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha,Adv.
For Applicant (s) Ms. Yugendhara Pawar Jha,Adv.
Mr. Kunal Verma,Adv.
Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv.
M/s. S.M. Jadhav & Company,Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by OM
For Respondent(s)
PARKASH SHARMA
Date: 2016.11.21 Mr. Amol B. Karanda,Adv.
12:04:54 IST
Reason:
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Mr. Prasanth P.,Adv.
2
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
CRLMP. 15633/2016 in SLP (Crl.) No.7953/2014 This application is filed with the prayer as follows:
“A) Relax the conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court (a) by its order d ated 05.01.2015 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.7953/2014 and (b) vide its order dated 12.10.2015 in Crl.MP.No.16754/2015 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.7953/2014.
B) pass any other order and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” Crl.MP No.17414/2016 in SLP(Crl)No.7535/2015 This application for modification/clarification of the order dated 7.12.2015 is filed with the prayer as follows:
“a) Clarify/modify the order dated 07.12.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court to the extent of deletion/omission of the condition that the Applicant/Petitioner shall not be allowed to visit and/or enter Jalgaon;
b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” CRL.MP.NO.16548/2016 IN SLP(Crl.)No.2132/2015 This application for modification or order dated 3.7.2015 is filed with the prayer as follows:
“a. allow the present application and modify the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in 3 SLP(Crl.)No.2132/2015 titled Pradeep Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and relax/remove the conditions imposed on the petitioner therein:
b. pass any other furher orders as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in interest of justice.” This Court by order dated 02.09.2016 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.10997/2015 directed the release of the co-accused of the applicants by name Suresh on bail without imposing any restrictions regarding either his residence or his movements. Therefore, the applicants plead parity and also insist that the said Suresh is the main accused.
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra submitted that the instant applications cannot be granted for the reason that one of the witnesses of the prosecution who was offered pardon, declined the offer of pardon and therefore, the relaxation of the conditions imposed on the applicants herein are likely to have an adverse affect on the trial of the criminal case pending against the applicants and the above mentioned accused Suresh. In response to a specific query whether the witness who declined the offer of pardon did so prior to or after the grant of bail by the order dated 02.09.2016 in favour of accused-Suresh, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that such an event took place even before 2.9.2016, however, the same could not be brought to the notice of this Court as the same was not within the knowledge of the counsel for the State appearing at that point of time.4
In our opinion if the State today is opposing the instant applications on the ground that relaxation of conditions imposed while granting bail to the applicant on 5.1.2015 would have adverse impact on the trial of the criminal case, logically, the State of Maharashtra should have taken an appropriate steps for having similar conditions imposed even on the other accused (Suresh). Assuming for the sake of argument that counsel for the State was not apprised of the factual situation on that day when the order dated 2.9.2016 came to be passed, the fact remains that even subsequently, the State never took any steps to get the order dated
2.9.2016 modified.
The inaction of the State in this regard, in our opinion calls for a scrutiny. We, therefore, direct notice to the Home Secretary of the State of Maharashtra to explain the inaction of the State. List these applications after three weeks.
[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR]
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER