BAG-20.11 v. Ravikiran V. Ingavale
Judgment
Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the Applicant. S/Shri S.R. Borulkar with Manoj Patil for the Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2009 Sanjay Bajirao Jagtap .... Applicant Vs. Ravikiran V. Ingavale & Anr. .... Respondents Shri Prashant Naik for the Applicant. S/Shri S.R. Borulkar with Manoj Patil for Respondent No.1. Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MARCH 23, 2011 P.C:
These are two applications for cancellation of bail by the State and the first informant. The allegation is that the 2 BAG-20.11 respondent was admitted to bail putting stringent conditions since he was an influential person and a leader. It is alleged that the respondent was supposed to leave the jurisdiction of Kolhapur District after being bailed out. But after he was released from the Kolhapur Prison, he went in a procession to his house and then left Kolhapur District after meeting his family members. Now, though this is deprecable, it cannot be called strictly a breach of conditions imposed on the respondent since the respondent had not stayed at Kolhapur after being released from the prison. Now from the prison he was bound to move out of Kolhapur by road and if he took a detour to meet his family on the way, that cannot be a matter of concern, though going in a procession was definitely uncalled for.
The next allegation against the respondent is that respondent was again permitted by the order of this Court dated 4-10-2010 to enter the limits of Kolhapur City for filing nomination for election to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on 7-10-2010 and 24-10-2010 for the purpose of canvassing as also on 31-10-2010 for casting his vote. The allegation is that on 7-10-2010 itself when the 3 BAG-20.11 respondent came in for filing his nomination, he had meetings with several persons. Now since he was permitted to enter Kolhapur and also for one more day for canvassing, if he did canvass on 7-10-2010 itself by meeting some persons, it cannot be a lapse warranting cancellation of bail. It is reported that the respondent has been elected to the Municipal Corporation as a result of the election held.
The last allegation of the learned counsel for the first informant is, however, serious. It is that after being bailed out, the respondent is not attending the trial Court and dragging his feet. My attention has been drawn to the applications for adjournments or exemption filed by the respondent. If the respondent seeks any adjournment at the trial by remaining absent, or does not allow the trial to proceed even in his absence by specifically stating to the Court that his identification would not be questioned, the bail granted to the respondent would have to be cancelled to ensure that he remains present at the trial. The learned counsel for the respondent states that he would ensure that the respondent attends the trial on all the days on which the trial is fixed and if for some reason 4 BAG-20.11 the respondent is not able to attend the Court, the trial will not be held up and the witnesses would be examined in the absence of the respondent without questioning the identity of the witnesses. The applications are, therefore, rejected.
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.