Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Bombay High Court
Vandana Vasant Deore vs Satish Atmaram Deore on 8 May, 2020
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.369 OF 2020 SATISH ATMARAM DEORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …… WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2020 NARENDRA ATMARAM DEORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. Advocate for applicants : Mr. Abhay Ostwal. APP for respondent-State : Mr. D. R. Kale. ….. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1007 OF 2020 IN ABA NO.369 OF 2020 VANDANA W/O VASANT DEORE VERSUS SATISH S/O ATAMRAM DEORE AND ANOTHER … WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1006 OF 2020 IN ABA NO.370 OF 2020 VANDANA W/O VASANT DEORE VERSUS NARENDRA S/O ATAMRAM DEORE AND ANOTHER … Advocate for applicants Mr. S. S. Ladda. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Abhay Ostwal APP for respondent-State : Mr. D. R. Kale. …::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 2 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 08-05-2020.
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who isintervening and appearing for the original informant.
2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court byorder dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall betaken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till suchtime the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety,whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and,therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension ofthe said order. The applications have been mainly objected by thelearned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives ofthe present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrestbail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon’bleSupreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejectedand the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within aperiod of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order bythose petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser thanthe present applicants yet the protection is granted to theapplicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, theapplicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecutionas well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.
3. First and the foremost fact is that, the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor undertakes to convey to the investigating officerthe apprehension of the informant about the likelihood of tamperingof the documents the informant wants to secure, and he submitsthat he would instruct the investigating officer to take necessarysteps for protecting and preserving the evidence which is accordingto the informant important in the case.

4. At this stage, it has not been submitted on behalf of theinvestigating officer or by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that,any such activity of tampering of evidence is reported. The learnedadvocate for the applicant submits that, the applicants are attendingthe police station and would co-operate with the investigation.
5. Taking into consideration the oral undertaking that has been ::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 ::: 4 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020given on behalf of the applicants that they would co-operate with theinvestigation and would attend the police station, the protectionwhich is granted earlier by this Court on 15-04-2020 deserves to beextended in view of the present situation of COVID-19 till thelockdown is lifted in its entirety. Hence, interim protection grantedby this Court on 15-04-2020 is hereby extended till the lockdown islifted in its entirety. Matter to be listed on 08-06-2020. Applicantsto co-operate and attend the police station and shall not tamper withthe evidence of the prosecution in any manner. Further it is clarifiedthat, if at all still the fear and the action of tampering of theevidence persist, the informant is at liberty to approach theinvestigating officer, and after collecting necessary evidence in thatrespect, either informant or investigating officer may move thisCourt for cancellation of the protection granted to the applicants.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGEvjg/-
::: Uploaded on – 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 09/05/2020 12:52:51 :::

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: