JOSEPH PAUL Vs. SHELLY DHALL SANJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) This petition is filed by the member of the Complainant (Society) for setting aside the order passed by the Principal Judge of the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, on anticipatory bail application No. 1024 of 2004, in favour of respondent No. 1. The respondent no. l has been named as accused in C. R. No. 119/2004 registered with Kurar village police Station. The respondent No. l had applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions court even before filing of the subject charge-sheet which, however, was rejected on 5th of may, 2004. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent No. 1 moved away from Mumbai and started residing at Ambala, as can be seen from the application filed by respondent No. 1 before the Sessions Judge at Ambala for grant of transitory anticipatory bail to enable her to approach the appropriate court in Mumbai where the subject offence is registered. That application came to be disposed of on 23d august, 2004 giving protection to the respondent No. 1 to take recourse to the remedy as may be permissible in law before 30th august, 2005. Armed with the said order, respondent No. 1 came to Mumbai and filed second application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai in august, 2004, which has been disposed of by the impugned order passed on 15th September, 2004. During the Pendency of the said application, the Respondent No. 1 was granted interim protection by the Sessions Court. The second application was filed on the assertion of the changed circumstance of registration of fir and no material forthcoming to indicate the complicity of respondent No. 1 in the commission of the offence. That application has been allowed by the order which is impugned in this application.

(3.) The petitioner before this court, as mentioned earlier, happens to be the member of the society (complainant) , has approached this court on the ground that successive anticipatory bail applications as filed by the respondent No. 1 before the lower court was not maintainable and for which reason, the order passed thereon in favour of respondent No. l, will have to be set aside. It is next contended that the conduct of the respondent No. 1 has been objectionable. It is stated that in the first application filed before the Sessions Court by respondent No. 1, the residential address of the respondent No. 1 was described as resident of mumbai; whereas on rejection of the said application on 5th of May, 2004, the respondent no. 1 immediately moved away from Mumbai and started residing at Ambala so as to avoid arrest in connection with the alleged offence. It is only after filing of the first information report and the investigation had progressed to some extent, the respondent No. 1 thought it appropriate to move the second anticipatory bail application and for that purpose moved formal application before the Ambala court, inter alia, stating that she was resident of Ambala and she was required to reside at the given address on account of some family problems. As the ambala court granted limited protection to the respondent No. 1, armed with that order, the respondent No. 1 visited Mumbai and filed second anticipatory bail application before the same court i. e. sessions court and asserted that no other application was filed for the same relief earlier either in the same court or before the high Court. According to the Petitioner this statement was palpably false.