High Court

Legal Reasoning

117 WP.794.2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.17 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2025Poornima Sachin Chordiya, Age: 43 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Kakasat Chauk, Bhadgaon, Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.… PetitionerVersus1)The State of Maharashtra,Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra State.2)The District Magistrate,Jalgaon.3)The Executive Magistrate,Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.4)The Learned Police Inspector,Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.5)Yogesh Suresh GanjeAge: Major Years, Occr. Nil, R/o. Near Bhavani Bag, Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.… Respondents...Mr. Mohd. Aamir, h/f Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocates for the Petitioner.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent / State....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :29th July, 2025. 217 WP.794.2025.odtPer Court:.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2The present petitioner seeks the following relief:-“B)This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate writ, orderor directions, may kindly be directed the respondentauthority to decide the representation / application dated01/01/2025, 27/03/2025, 01/04/2025 and be please todirect the respondent authority to take action against therespondent No.5 under the provisions of Bhartiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita.” 3The petitioner contends that an offence vide C.R. No.895of 2024, came to be registered with Bhadgaon Police Station on 10thOctober, 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 351(2),324(4) with Section 110/117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, againstone Yogesh Suresh Ganje i.e. present respondent No.5. Thereafter,the respondents authorities had filed Chapter Case bearing No.287 of2024, under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.Respondent No.5 / Yogesh Ganje then gave bond and undertook notto commit breach of the public peace and order. It is then stated thatwhen the petitioner was at home on 23rd November, 2024, a 317 WP.794.2025.odtprocession was going on after the election for the post of MLA and shestates that respondent No.5 entered her house and threw the Gulal inher house. Respondent No.5 again unauthorizedly entered her houseafter ½ an hour once again threw Gulal from a sack / container on thepetitioner to outrage her modesty. The offence vide C.R. No.434 of2024 came to be registered under Sections 74, 79 and 329(4) of BNS.Now, the petitioner states that the subsequent FIR against respondentNo.5 amounts to breach of the public peace and therefore, therespondents should take action for the encashment of the bondamount i.e. execution of the bond amount. However, when no suchaction is taken, she had made the representations / applications on 1stJanuary, 2025, 27th March, 2025 and 1st April, 2025. It has fallen onthe deaf ears of the respondents and therefore, she has approachedthis Court. 4The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section141(1)(b) of BNSS provides that if any person after having executed abond or bail bond for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of aMagistrate under Section 136, is proved, to the satisfaction of suchMagistrate, then such Magistrate or his successor-in-office may, afterrecording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrestedand detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond or bailbond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other 417 WP.794.2025.odtpunishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable inaccordance with law. As this action has not been taken, the petitionerstates that the respondents be directed to decide the representations /applications of the petitioner. 5Here, it is to be noted that it is the discretion of theconcerned authority and at this stage what it appears is that on 11thOctober, 2024, the Resident Naib Tahsildar, Bhadgaon gavecommunication to the Taluka Magistrate i.e. Officer at Tahsil that theinterim bond was taken by him and he filed the chapter proceedingagainst present respondent No.5 and the Resident Naib Tahsildarstates that he is requesting that the interim bond should be taken for aperiod of one year. Thereafter, it appears that a notice was issued topresent respondent No.5 and in the said notice it is stated that it isnecessary to take bond from him and therefore, he should give showcause. It appears that thereafter, respondent No.5 gave a bond on 11thOctober, 2024. Here, it is to be noted that in the said notice it is notstated as to what would be the duration of the said bond. But in thebond, it is stated that it would be till the end of the inquiry. If weconsider Section 126(1) of BNSS, then it provides for issuing show-cause-notice as to why such person should not be ordered to executea bond or bail bond. In the notice also those wordings are used.However, it is to be noted that in the notice the date of appearance 517 WP.794.2025.odtwas given as 14th October, 2024, but the bond and the other documentalongwith it, as to whether he has received the notice etc., have beenexecuted on 11th October, 2024. That means when the bond wastaken, no order was in existence. Even for that order, the concernedofficer i.e. the Executive Magistrate, should come to a conclusion oropinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It appears thatone more proceeding was started by PSI, Bhadgaon Police Station bymaking a correspondence to the Executive Magistrate, Bhadgaon on10th December, 2024, which was stated to be in respect of the incidentdated 23rd November, 2024 as aforesaid. Second chapter casebearing No.400 of 2024 appears to have been started, again the noticehas been issued having similar contents. Interestingly, there is no dateas to when this notice, which is presently produced on page No.32,was issued, but then it states that respondent No.5 should remainpresent before the Executive Magistrate at 11:00 am on 10thDecember, 2024. Thus, it is to be noted that PSI, Bhadgaon PoliceStation, makes the correspondence on the same day, then theExecutive Magistrate issues the notice asking respondent No.5 toremain present on 10th December, 2024. Then it is stated thatrespondent No.5 remained present before the Executive Magistrate onthe same date. On page No.35, it appears that the ExecutiveMagistrate, Bhadgaon has passed order of final bond as stated to beunder Section 126 of the BNSS, directing present respondent No.5 to 617 WP.794.2025.odtgive the bond of Rs.50,000/-. Interestingly, in the said order, it is statedthat respondent No.5 was produced before the Executive Magistrateon 10th December, 2024 and respondent No.5 admitted his guilt. Anormal procedure appears to have been adopted by the ExecutiveMagistrate, Bhadgaon. There is no date to the order, but it appearsthat it was passed on 10th December, 2024 itself. So, everything i.e.from the proposal till getting the final bond executed has taken place inone day. Even the Executive Magistrate appears to have prepared aplea of such person i.e. format, which does not contain any admissionand in a way judgment on plead guilty appears to have been passed.What was so-called admitted, is that respondent No.5 appears to haveshown his readiness to execute the bond. That cannot be taken byany stretch of imagination that he was admitting the guilt as in theproposal, the story regarding alleged incident dated 23rd November,2024 was included and also that a separate FIR has been lodged bythe present petitioner. All the way, the Executive Magistrate hasadopted printed forms, which is not contemplated in the procedure tobe undertaken under Sections 126, 127, 128 or 129 of BNSS and alsounder Section 130 i.e. the final order to be passed. Therefore, we areof the opinion that whatever action that was taken against respondentNo.5, was illegal. There cannot be implementation of such order andtherefore, there is no question of issuing direction to respondent Nos.1to 4 to decide the representations or applications of the petitioner and 717 WP.794.2025.odttaking any action against respondent No.5. 6The writ petition stands dismissed at the threshold. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga