- ticket title
- Certificate Course on Energy Law and Management in India @ NLSIU Bengaluru [February 15-17]: Register by Dec 10
- GNLU’s Online Diploma and PG Diploma Courses: Register by December 1
- 5th ILS National Alternate Judgement Writing Competition 2017-2018
- Gujarat National Law University’s 3rd National B Plan Competition – Exuberance 2018: Deadline- January 15, 2018
- Supreme Court Directed To Install CCTV Cameras In Courts, Says There Is No Need For Privacy
In the High Court Of Bombay headed by Justice A. M. Badar , a Criminal Writ Petition No.3438 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner Navinchandra Gangadhar Hegde while respondent was The State Of Maharashtra.
Facts projecting from this petition vividly shows scant disregard to the judicial orders by police authorities. The petitioner herein is accused in Crime No.177 of 2016 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 170, 183, 186 and 120 B of the IPC.
The petitioner was arrested in the said crime on 26th July 2016n and was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. After rejection of his bail application by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he preferred an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, Mumbai.
The said application was registered as Bail application No.1737 of 2016 was allowed .
But , again the petitioner came to be arrested on 19th August2017 at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Sahara, Mumbai, when he was about to travel to some foreign country. He came to be produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with remand application on 19th August 2017. He, then, preferred an application for bail which came to be opposed by the learned APP by stating that the applicant came to be arrested in pursuant to Red Corner notice issued against him during investigation.
Unfortunately, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 19th August 2017 was pleased to reject the said application with a reason that the petitioner was attempting to travel abroad without prior permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
The court said , “The Red Corner look out notice is not pertaining to some other crime but it is in respect of the very same crime bearing no.177 of 2016. Once the petitioner is arrested in the said crime, red corner notice issued at some prior stage cannot be made use to rearrest the petitioner, despite the judicial order directing his released on bail. The police, infact, committed breach of order releasing the petitioner on bail by rearresting him on the pretext of the alleged Red Corner notice issued during investigation.
It is seen from the said order that no condition prohibiting the petitioner to travel abroad or to seek permission of the concerned court while travelling abroad was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail, during the pendency of the trial.”
Thereby the impugned order dated 19th August 2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, is quashed and set aside and was ordered to be released.