STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMESH DHOKATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned A. P. P. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent-original accused.

(2.) The State has preferred this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in C. R. No. 306 of 2003 of Dombivali Police Station. Bail is being sought to be cancelled on merits as well as on the ground that respondent has tried to hamper the investigation and had tampered with the witnesses. THE respondent is facing prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 478, 471 of IPC and also under Sections 35 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was unwell. He was required to be operated and on account of this, he was unable to attend the Police Station for remaining period of seven days. Reliance is placed on certain letters which were given to the Police Inspector of (EOW), Thane Crime wherein it is stated that from 29-04-2004 respondent is required to go out on account of his personal and household reasons. On 05-05-2004 he was required to appear before the Maharashtra Medical Council in respect of enquiry and from 06-05-2004 to 10-05-2004, he was required to undergo test in relation to operation. However, it is seen that none of these letters, have been given to the concerned Police Station or Crime Branch (EOW), Thane after the order dated-29-04-2004 was passed by this Court. So also when the order dated-29-04-2004 was passed by this Court, all these facts were not brought to the notice of the Court and in fact, it was agreed that the respondent would attend the Crime Branch (EOW) Thane for a period of twenty days from 30-04-2004. From 30-04-2004, it is seen that respondent had attended for 13 days. When the respondent was not to attend or could not attend Crime Branch (EOW) Thane from 14-05-2004 he ought to have informed the Investigating Officer or concerned officer of the Crime Branch (EOW) Thane that from the next day onwards, he would not be attending and he ought to have stated reasons for not so attending. However, no such step was taken by the respondent and from 14th day onwards, the respondent remained absent. No intimation in respect of his absence was given by the respondent on the 13th day or any day prior thereto, after the order was passed by this Court directing him to attend for twenty days. In fact no such intimation was given at any point to the investigating agency after the order dated-29-04-2004 was passed by this Court.