RAJESH LAL PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai in MECR No.4 of 2007 registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the present applicant. I proceed to hear and dispose of this application without notice to respondent nos.5 and 6, for reasons to follow.

(2.) ' The present applicant is the original complainant. According to him in the litigation before the Small Causes Court the decree was passed for possession and since 1992 he was trying to execute that decree for possession. When the bailiff went to execute the decree on 13.6.1999, one Sunil Laxman Naik was present and he obstructed the execution on the ground that he was in possession of the premises as owner of the hotel for about 35 years and the decree was not against him and it could not be executed against him. Thereafter, the present applicant filed the proceedings, being Notice No.19 of 1999, against said Sunil Laxman Naik. On 24.2.2004 Smt. Nalini Ashok Naik and Kishor Laxman Naik filed death certificate of Sunil Laxman Naik, purporting to have been issued on 24.2.2004 by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Later on it was revealed that the said death certificate was forged and fake document and Sunil Laxman Naik is alive. Respondent no.6 is Sunil Laxman Naik and respondent no.5 is Kishor Laxman Naik @ Shyam Sunder Laxman Naik. The complaint of the present applicant was that respondent nos.5 and 6, in collusion with Smt.Nalini Ashok Naik, had forged death certificate of Sunil Laxman Naik while he was very much alive just to mislead the Small Causes Court in deciding the execution proceedings. The complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate and it was registered as C.C.No.242/PW/2008. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per that order Dadar police station registered MECR No.4 of 2007 against accused persons and they came to be arrested on 24.11.2007. Inspite of expiry of 90 days after arrest of the accused, the police did not file charge-sheet. Therefore, learned Magistrate granted bail to respondent nos.5 and 6 as per provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) ' It appears that even though accused were in jail for long time, the present applicant was not satisfied and he approached this court for cancellation of bail. Then he approached the police for re-investigation of the case. From his conduct it appears that the applicant wanted to get the accused persons re-arrested. Due to apprehension of the arrest again, inspite of bail granted to them earlier, the accused persons were compelled to approach the Sessions Court to seek anticipatory bail. After giving sufficient opportunity to the prosecution the learned Addl. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail and the complainant has moved this court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. In view of the fact that the bail was already granted to them under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused were not required to approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail because the police had no authority under law to re-arrest them in the same case. However, it appears that the complainant tried to misuse the police machinery and wanted that the accused be re-arrested, therefore, the accused sought shield of anticipatory bail. The conduct of the complainant in coming to this court for cancellation of anticipatory bail clearly shows that he is not genuinely prosecuting the case but is trying to persecute the accused persons and by hook or crook he wants them to be kept behind bars. The filing of such application not only causes wastage of time of the court but it also amounts to misusing process of the court. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.