Bombay High Court
Mohomed Morani And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 March, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:12635
1/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2024
Mohomed Morani & Anr. .... Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Niranjan Mundargi
a/w Ms. Keral Mehta, a/w Parvez Memon a/w Chirag Naik a/
w Kush Agarwal i/b. MZM Legal LLP, Advocate for Applicant.
• Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 14th MARCH, 2024
P.C. :
1. This is an application for Transit Anticipatory Bail. The
Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with
C.R.No.120/2024, dated 14/02/2024, registered at Karavi
Kotwali Nagar Police Station, District-Chitrakut, State of Uttar
Pradesh, under sections 286, 336, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal
Code and under section 3(b) and 4 of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908.
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 :::
2/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
2. The FIR is in respect of the incident of blast which had
taken place on 14/02/2024. The FIR mentions that fire cracking
was to be conducted on that day in respect of Bundelkhand
Gaurav Mahotsav. The company by name Dome Entertainment
Pvt. Ltd. was managing that event. The Applicants are Directors
of that company.
3. This matter was listed before this Court on
06/03/2024. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka, as
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1484, I had issued notice to the
concerned Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor, who
were seized of the subject matter FIR. The notice was made
returnable on 08/03/2024. On the next date i.e. on
08/03/2024, affidavit of service was filed. But nobody had
appeared for the Respondents. Therefore, to give them one more
chance, I had issued fresh notice to the Respondents and it was
made returnable on today's date. Private service was allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 :::
3/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
4. Today, affidavit of service is filed. Learned counsel for
the Applicants submitted that the Investigating Officer is served
through an email. The concerned Public Prosecutor, who is
seized of the matter, did not provide the email address, but he
was delivered the notice by hand delivery. However, he refused
to give acknowledgment. The affidavit of service to that effect is
filed. It is taken on record.
5. Considering this situation, this matter can be decided,
as the Respondents have not appeared before this Court.
Learned APP of this Court does not have any instructions from
these two Respondents from UP.
6. Learned Senior Counsel made various submissions on
the merits of the matter. However, I am not referring to the
merits of the matter because ultimately, the Applicants will have
to approach the Court in U.P. to get relief u/s 438 of Cr.PC.
However, I am taking into consideration the submission
regarding difficulties faced by the Applicants in approaching the
competent Court immediately.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 :::
4/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that one employee
of the Applicant's company was already arrested. The Applicants
have reasonable apprehension of their arrest in connection with
the said incident. Both the Applicants are residents of Mumbai.
On the date of incident also they were in Mumbai. Learned
counsel for the Applicants submitted that there could not be
vicarious liability under such circumstances. He submitted that
the Applicants do not have any intention to evade the due
process of law. They are willing to cooperate with the
investigation. But they need some reasonable time to approach
the competent Court to obtain relief in accordance with law.
8. Considering these submissions, I am inclined to grant
them some reasonable time to enable them to approach the
Competent Court in Uttar Pradesh to seek appropriate remedy
u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that I have made no
observations on the merits of the matter. It is left open for the
competent Court to decide the issue on merit. I am only taking
into account the necessity of the reasonable time to the
Applicants. The Applicants have already deposited their passport
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 :::
5/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
with the nearest police station and they have thus shown their
bonafides.
9. Considering this situation, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.120/2024, dated 14/02/2024, registered at Karavi Kotwali Nagar Police Station, District- Chitrakut, State of Uttar Pradesh, for a period of three weeks, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.
(ii) The police station, where the Applicants have deposited their passport, shall retain their passport for a period of 3 weeks from today, subject to the further orders by the competent Court of Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) The Applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 ::: 6/6 904-ABA-630-24.odt
(iv) This order shall operate for a period of three
weeks from today.
(v) The application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 19:10:58 :::