MEHNDI VIRANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

(2.) The present Applicant is original complainant who had filed a private complaint against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 for the several offences including sections 467, 468, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate directed the investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police after investigation filed the charge-sheet. When the investigation was in progress, apprehending arrest for the said offences the accused persons made an application for anticipatory bail which was granted by the Court of Sessions. After filing of the charge-sheet the accused persons filed an Application for bail before the Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the same on the ground that he had no powers to grant the bail as the offence under section 467 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life. In view of this, the accused persons filed bail Application No. 350 of 2009 before the Sessions Court under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sewri after stating the relevant facts leading to the prosecution and filing of charge-sheet noted that after the anticipatory bail was granted, there were no complaints of threatening the witnesses by the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused persons by the impugned order dated 16-5-2009.

(3.) The Applicant, by this Application, seeks to quash that order on the ground that as the accused were already on anticipatory bail, the regular bail Application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be considered nor such bail can be granted by the Sessions Court because the accused were not in custody on the date when the Application for bail was made or when the bail under section 439 of the Code was granted. It is contended that in view of these circumstances, the impugned order granting the bail is erroneous and therefore, liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for Applicant made clear that this is not an Application for cancellation of bail on any of the grounds, which could be available for cancellation of bail after it is granted.