Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2 Pursuant to lodgment of the FIRs', the investigation started. When the applicant came to know that he is likely to be arrested in the said offence, R/CR.MA/15307/2014 ORDER he had preferred an application under Section- 438 of the Code in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Thane (State of Maharashtra) and requested that a transit bail may be given for approaching the concerned Sessions Court at Nadiad. The said application came to be allowed and he was granted transit bail and was asked to file an appropriate applications within a particular time. 2.3 Pursuant to the said order, the applicant had preferred an application under section-438 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed on 28.11.2005. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred several applications before the Trial Court, before this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in none of the cases, any relief was granted in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, a warrant under Section-70 of the Code came to be issued against the applicant and subsequently orders under Section-82 of the Code were passed by the competent court. 2.4 Though, the last order refusing anticipatory bail came to be passed way back in the year 2006, the applicant neither surrendered before the Investigating Agency nor before the court and remain absconded. Meanwhile, one of the accused had died and in case of other accused, relief was granted by this Court when they had approached under Section-482 of the Code.

2.5 Similarly, an FIR was lodged at DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, which came to be registered as CR No. I-5 of 2005 for the offenses punishable under Sections 292, 294, 295, 420 of the IPC as well as under Sections 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, alleging similar type of activities being carried out by the applicant and other R/CR.MA/15307/2014 ORDER accused. In the said case, some of the accused had approached this Court under Section-482 whereas present applicant and some other accused persons approached the learned Sessions Court and came to be acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

4.2 Mr. Raju, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that with regard to the crime registered at Chaklasi Police Station is concerned, some of the co-accused had filed application under Section-482 of the Cr. P.C. before this Court and in those cases, the FIRs' have been quashed by this Court as far as those accused are concerned. In some of the cases, stay against further proceedings has been granted and those applications are pending.

4.3 Mr. Raju, learned Senior Counsel, would further submit that apart from the changed circumstances, the applicant cannot be treated as an R/CR.MA/15307/2014 ORDER absconder since he has been enlarged on bail pursuant to an Order dated 7.1.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He submits that the applicant has already executed a bond as per the said order. Mr. Raju, learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court, in the case of VIMLABEN AJITBHAI PATEL vs. VATSLABEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL & ORS., as reported at (2008) 4 SCC

(v) Thus, it is clear that all the proceedings either filed under Section 438 or Section-482 of the Code or challenging the warrant issued under Section-70, have come to an end, the applicant did not surrender for years together. After 2006, in absence of any order granting any relief by any court including the highest court of the country, he did not obey the orders or surrender before the investigating agency or concerned court which had issued warrant under Section-70 of the Code and thereafter order of proclamation has passed under Section-82 of the Code. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has also filed an application under Section-482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR, which was not entertained by this Court. The applicant is shown as an absconder when the charge-sheet was filed against the accused way back in the year 2005- 2006.