Bombay High Court
Rupesh Krishnarao Marne vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 July, 2025
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:29231
9. WP 3652-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANAND
SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3652 OF 2025
SUDAME
Rupesh Krishnarao Marne .Petitioner
Digitally signed
by ANAND
SUDHAKAR Versus
SUDAME
Date: 2025.07.16 The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents
15:56:26 +0530
Mr. Shailesh Kharat i/b. Mr. A. R. Chikate a/w. Mr. Omkar
Chaudhari and Mr. Tanmay Kate, Advocates for the Petitioner
Ms. S. E. Phad, APP, for the Respondents - State
Mr. Rahul Pawar, PSI, Crime Branch, Pune present
______________________________________________________
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 14.07.2025
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Petitioner who is
shown as an absconding Accused in the Charge-sheet filed against
Co-accused persons.
2. Heard Ms. Phad, learned APP for the Respondents - State.
3. There is a challenge to the Order of issuance of proclamation
passed by the learned Special Judge (MCOCA), Pune dated
22.05.2025. This was issued in the Charge-sheet filed in connection
with C. R. No. 46 of 2025 registered with the Kothrud Police
Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 109,
Anand 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:09:23 :::
9. WP 3652-2025.doc
118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 111(7) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") r/w.
3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised
Crime Act, 1999 (for short "MCOCA").
4. The contention is that the learned Special Judge has not
followed the procedure and the ingredients of relevant sections of
the BNSS are not followed. One more circumstance is relied upon.
By way of an Application once filed for Anticipatory Bail, and that
is how he has surrendered to the process of law, it cannot be
considered as an absconding Accused.
5. Ms. Phad, Learned APP for the Respondents - State strongly
opposed allowing the Petition for the reason that he is an
absconding Accused and no audience should be given to him. There
is also submission about his antecedents.
6. Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has invited my
attention to the Report given by the Investigating Officer dated
22.05.2025 addressed to the Court who is seized of Anticipatory
Bail Application. This report was given in pursuance to the
Application filed by the Applicant thereby demanding the CCTV
footage. According to Mr. Kharat, at least when this report was filed,
police are fully aware about pendency of the Anticipatory Bail
Application and that is why their contention that his client is
absconding is untenable.
7. I am not going into grounds taken thereby challenging the
issuance of proclamation. It can be challenged on the ground which
Anand 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:09:23 :::
9. WP 3652-2025.doc
goes to the root of issue and also on the minor lapses. I am not going
into either of the issues. Only I am considering the fact that he has
taken recourse to the Court of law. There is also submission that
Anticipatory Bail Application cannot be filed in an offence
punishable under the MCOCA. I am not going into that issue. It is
for the concerned Court to decide.
8. The Order of issuance of proclamation can be kept in
abeyance for a limited duration. The direction can be given to the
learned Special Judge who is seized of the Anticipatory Bail
Application to decide the Anticipatory Bail Application on a priority
basis. Hence, the Order.
O R D E R
(i) The learned Special Judge who is seized of the Anticipatory Bail Application shall make an endeavour to decide pending Anticipatory Bail Application as early as possible and also to decide pending Applications in the same on merit.
(ii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the contentions raised before this Court.
(iii) Till the time, Anticipatory Bail Application be finally decided, the proclamation issued as per the Order dated 22.05.2025 be kept in abeyance.
(iv) Both the parties are at liberty to request the Court to hear their submissions on priority basis.
(v) Once Anticipatory Bail Application is decided, the proclamation will come into force depending upon outcome of the Anand 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:09:23 :::
9. WP 3652-2025.doc Petition.
(vi) Depending upon outcome of the Anticipatory Bail Application, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings about the proclamation.
9. The Petition stands disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:09:23 :::