AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biren Vaishnav, J
Heard Mr. Sushil Matkar, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Nayan D Parekh, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Rushang D. Mehta, learned advocate for original complainant.
In this application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a successive bail anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant.
It is the case of the complainant for whom Mr. Rushang Mehta appears that the complainant is aged 41 years is a house wife of the applicant herein. The marriage of the year 2007 went sour after some time and perusal of the complaint indicates that there are allegations that the applicant has assaulted the complainant.
It appears that after having argued, the applicant of anticipatory bail before this Court in the first round, by an order dated 25.10.2021, the same was withdrawn. Apparently it was so withdrawn before the Court at that point of time was not with a view to not entertain anticipatory bail on merits.
Reading the memo of the application, the only ground which the anticipatory bail is moved is that the applicant was not informed of the withdrawal of the application nor did he gave instructions for withdrawing the same and the same was withdrawn without instructions of the applicant.
Mr. Matkar, learned counsel for the applicant would rely on a decision dated 12.7.2013 of the Kerala High Court in the case of Aneesh v. State of Kerala passed in Bail Application No.5421 of 2013 and submits that even if there are no subsequent circumstances, a second application for anticipatory bail can be considered.
Having perused the FIR and having heard Mr.Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State and Mr.R.D. Mehta, learned advocate for the complainant and having perused the investigation papers, on a contextual reading of the FIR which reveals allegations of assault and though it is the case of the applicant that what actually is the motive of the complainant is not to return a jewellery, investigation papers reveal that notices have been issued to the applicant and on 21.12.2021, a warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued which indicates the applicant's non-cooperation with the investigating authorities.
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Manan Mehta, reading the investigation papers indicates that there are as many as six criminal antecedents, wherein, FIRs have been filed under Section 120(B) read with Section 420 of the IPC by the CBI/EOW Mumbai police station. Keeping all these aspects in mind, I do not deem it fit to entertain this application. Hence, this application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.