STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANJAY MORESHWAR DAMLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

(2.) ALL the above referred criminal revision applications are directed against the same impugned order dated 13-8-1998 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby non-applicants/accused S. M. Damle, D. A. Gadgil and Surin Usgaonkar came to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 245/1998 under sections 406, 420 and 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE State of Maharashtra as well as complainant Dakshindas challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 13-8-1998 on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons because the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. According to Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the State, and Shri Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the complainant, the very approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not proper. According to the learned Counsel, the dispute is not at all of civil nature and accused persons have committed offences under the above referred provisions of law and hence, discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of accused is absolutely erroneous. The impugned order also came to be challenged on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have given due regard to nature of allegations and gravity of offences so also the aspect of custodial interrogation and failure to consider these aspects by the learned Additional Sessions Judge resulted in wrong exercise of discretion under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.