This Is High Court Order Passed on 17-Dec-2012.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1083 of 2012
Ashok Asandas Bahirwani ... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...
Mr.Ahmed Abdi i/b M/s.Abdi & Co. for the applicant.
Mr.P.D.Gharat, Spl.P.P with Ms.R.M.Gadhvi, APP for the State.
Ms.R.M.Gadhvi, APP for the State.
I.O Mr.Bhagirati P. Shelke PI, EOW, CB CID, UnitIII, present in
Court.
Mr.Aabad H. Ponda with Ms.Jyoti Singh and Ms.Sri Sobari Rajan i/b
M/s.Phoenix Legal for Speak Asia Online Pvt.Ltd.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED : December 17, 2012
P.C.
1 Heard Mr.Ahmed Abdi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard Mr.P.D.Gharat, learned Special P.P for the Economic Offences
Wing, Mumbai Police along with Ms.R.M.Gadhvi, learned APP for
the State. I have also heard Mr.A.H.H. Ponda, learned counsel who
appears for the Speak Asia Online Pvt.Ltd, pursuant to a notice
given by the applicant.
2/3
(8)ABA.108312
2 The learned counsel for the applicant points out that though
the learned Special P.P had consented on the last date of hearing
that the applicants interrogation by, or interviews with the
Investigating Officer would be video recorded, actually the
applicant was not called at all thereafter for interrogation.
Mr.Gharat submits that the applicant was called yesterday i.e. on 16
December 2012 and that the applicant, at that time, came to the
office of the EOW along with the videographer and submitted that
the chip of the recording would be taken by the applicant.
According to Mr.Gharat, therefore, the Investigating Agency now
does not agree that the interrogation or interview of the applicant
by the Investigating Officer should be allowed to be video recorded.
3 Mr.Gharat also does not agree to the suggestion that the
recorded chip may be kept by the Investigating Agency in a sealed
cover and submits that he had agreed for the video recording of the
interrogation in the peculiar facts and circumstances as existed on 7
December 2012, and now the Investigating Agency no more agrees
for such a suggestion. Thus, in other words, the investigating
agency is now not ready to keep a record of the interrogation in the
form of video recording.
4 Mr.Gharat also submits that the Company 'Speak Asia Online
Pvt.Ltd' would have no say in the matter. In this regard, it may be
observed that when a prayer that he be allowed to give a notice to
the said company was made before the Court on the last date, the
Investigating Agency had not objected to such a course being
adopted. In any case, it would be for the Court to decide whether
3/3
(8)ABA.108312
hearing the said company would be necessary for a proper
determination of the present Anticipatory Bail Application. It
cannot, at this stage be said that a company should not be given any
audience even if it voluntarily comes forward to make submissions
on certain relevant aspects, on the basis of notice given by the
applicant.
5 In spite of these differences between counsel for the applicant
and the learned Spl.P.P, they both agree that the final hearing of the
application may be deferred, and that in the meantime, the
applicant shall not be arrested.
6 Stand Over to 9 January 2013 for final hearing.
7 The applicant shall continue to attend the office of the
Investigating Agency, as and when required by the Investigating
Officer. The Investigating Officer agrees that the applicants shall
not be arrested in the meantime.
(ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J)
Comments
Post a Comment