Bombay High Court
Varsha Narendra Deore vs Dr. Vasant Daulat Deore on 18 February, 2019
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
35-ACB-134-2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
35 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 134 OF 2018
VARSHA NARENDRA DEORE
VERSUS
DR. VASANT DAULAT DEORE AND OTHERS
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kishor C. Sant
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Amol S. Sawant
APP for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-State : Mr. P. K. Lakhotia
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2019 PER COURT:-
1. The applicant/original informant has filed this application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents/accused by order below Exhibit 1 dated 04.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Bail Application No. 651 of 2018 in connection with crime no. 105 of 2018 registered at Sakri Police Station.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there are allegations against the respondents/accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to them. The accused ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 04:35:54 ::: 35-ACB-134-2018 -2- persons, in furtherance of their common intention, participated in commission of the theft. The antecedents of the respondents/accused are also not clear. However, the Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the same. Learned counsel submits that even the villagers have also lodged complaints against the respondents and even though the respondents are having no concern with the trust and the school, they are illegally interfering in the day to day administration of the trust. Respondent no.1 is claiming to be the Vice-President of the trust and he along with other accused persons have threatened the informant on various occasions that they would see to it that the school does not function properly. On 25.05.2018, respondent no.1 alongwith some others, had been to the school without any permission and authority. He had created a scene and got signature of the teaching staff on one panchnama. All this has been recorded in CCTV camera. A complaint was filed on 29.08.2018 by the Head Master of the school in respect of the said incident and a CCTV footage was also handed over. Accused no.1 and other persons have also stolen the CCTV and the DVR. Thus, the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents/accused may be cancelled. ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 04:35:54 :::
35-ACB-134-2018 -3-
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that there are two groups in the trust, namely, Dhangai Vidhayak Karya Mandal, Mhasdi, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. Both the groups are claiming their rights over the day to day administration of the said trust. In consequence of which, members of both the groups have lodged complaints against each other. The complaint which is the subject matter of the present application is also outcome of the group politics. The respondents/accused are respectable persons in the village. Additional Sessions Judge has considered entire aspect of the case and rightly granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. There is no substance in this application.
4. I have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State. Learned APP, on instructions submits that investigation is almost complete for all practical purposes and the formality of filing charge sheet is only remained.
5. It appears that there are two groups claiming their rights over the administration of the aforesaid trust and even the dispute is pending before the Charity authorities and also before the court in various forms. It further appears that the members of both the ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 04:35:54 ::: 35-ACB-134-2018 -4- groups have gone to such an extent as to lodge complaints against each other including outraging of modesty, commission of theft etc. On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that the learned Judge has given much weightage to the long standing dispute between these two groups and also observed that possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
6. It is well settled and the Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 has also observed that interference by the High Court in the order granting bail can be justified if the order of granting bail has been vitiated by any serious infirmity. In the case of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, the Supreme Court has observed that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted. Further, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad reported in AIR 2017 SC 630, the Supreme Court has observed that interference by the higher court is required if the discretion of grant of bail is exercised on extraneous considerations ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 04:35:54 ::: 35-ACB-134-2018 -5- or there is arbitrary or wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the court granting bail. The Supreme Court has also observed that the prime consideration is to protect the fair trial and to ensure that justice has been done.
7. In the instant case, I do not find any serious infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is otherwise a well reasoned order. I do not find any overwhelming circumstances so as to interfere in the order of anticipatory bail passed by the court below. I find no substance in this application for cancellation of bail and the same is hereby rejected.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/ ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2019 04:35:54 :::