1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 518 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5115 OF 2009 Sneha Vilas Shahasane .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Ms. Sneha Shahasane, applicant in person. Mr. Ashish Gaikwad & Ms. Shubhangi Sherekar for respondents. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to respondents by an order dated 19/11/2009. In this matter, notice before admission was issued and it was made returnable within two weeks. The said order was passed on 24/11/2009. The applicant who is appearing in person mentioned the matter in the morning on 7/12/2009 at 11 O’clock and pointed out that though the matter was to appear on that day on board, it did not appear and requested that the office may be directed to produce the papers and the matter may be heard urgently at 3 O’clock. I was informed by my Sheristedar that the matter was to appear on Board on 10/12/2009. Accordingly, I informed the applicant appearing in person that the matter was scheduled to be heard on 10/12/2009 and, therefore, request for 2 production of papers at 3 O’clock was not granted. Thereafter, it appears that the applicant immediately went and mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the morning session in the Court and made a grievance that the matter is not being taken up for hearing though it was due to appear on that date. She again questioned the Sheristedar as to why papers were not being produced at 3 O’clock. She was told by my Sheristedar to mention the matter at 3 O’clock. Accordingly at 3 O’clock, she mentioned the matter and informed me that she had mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. I informed the applicant that since she had filed an application for cancellation of bail and since the matter was not on board on 7/12/2009, the matter could not have been heard in the absence of respondents who had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. I also told her that since she was a practicing advocate, she should be aware of this fact and told her that in the morning itself I had informed her that the matter was now kept on 10/12/2009. I directed the Office to keep the matter high on board on that date. Accordingly on 10/12/2009, the matter was shown first on board. 2. I have heard the applicant who is appearing in person, the learned Counsel for respondents and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State at length. Applicant submitted that the order dated 19/11/2009 had been obtained by respondents by suppressing certain facts. She submitted that she was injured in the assault by the said 3 respondents and that 7 stitches had to be put on her arm which was not brought to the notice of this Court. She submitted that so far as her antecedents are concerned which were mentioned in the application filed by respondents herein, were pertaining to the year 1999-2000 and that, in a case, which was filed against her under section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, she had been acquitted by the Sessions Court. She submitted that though the respondents herein were aware of this fact, they did not bring this fact to the notice of this Court. She then submitted that the police had come to her place and had rescued her and had taken her to the hospital. She also submitted that the Police Constable was present in the hospital when the stitches were put on her hand. She invited my attention to the wireless messages which she has secured by applying under the Right to Information Act and also medical papers to show that there were injuries on her arm and that 7 stitches had been put by the doctor. She submitted that Respondent No.2 herein was MNS Activist and that he had demanded certain amount from her on telephone. She has also stated that she was assaulted by respondent No.2. She has stated that she was also assaulted by other respondents and they had torn her blouse and saree. She also stated that she had also filed NC complaint against these respondents before the actual incident of assault took place on the applicant. She also invited my attention to various letters written to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Police Inspector of Dadar 4 Police Station and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-5, Mumbai. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents in their application stated in para 3(d) of the application that the applicant herein had made a phone call to Dadar Police Station and made a complaint against respondent No.1 and after the phone call, police had visited the house of the applicant herein and had taken her to the K.E.M. Hospital for treatment and after the medical treatment was over, she went to Dadar Police Station and pressurized the police to register offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since medical papers were not shown, police refused to register the offence under section 307. 4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State also pointed out that the applicant was in the habit of filing false complaints against Police Officers. He invited my attention to the compilation filed by him alongwith the application. He firstly invited my attention to the report submitted by Dadar Police Station to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 5th Court, Dadar dated 16/11/2009 wherein it was pointed out that Senior Police Officer had specifically recorded that after having perused the injury certificate, it was found that the said injuries did not appear to be of a serious nature. It was further stated that opinion of the Medical Officer was 5 sought and he had also asked for mobile clip of the said incident from the complainant. However, he further added that the complainant had not cooperated with the police. He also mentioned that the complainant had not cooperated the police at any time and had filed complaints against them. The learned APP then pointed out some news clippings which had appeared in the Marathi News Paper some time in December 2000 wherein it was mentioned that the applicant and her sister fired bullet from the rifle which was kept in their house. He also invited my attention to two police complaints which were filed against the present applicant. It is submitted that the present applicant had, in the past, similar disputes with her neighbours and several complaints were filed against the applicant and her sisters. Even Chapter Proceedings had to be initiated against them. He submitted that, therefore, the applicant was in the habit of filing false complaints against the police and was harassing neighbours. He submitted that the allegation that respondent No.2 is MNS Activist was also false and incorrect and the said allegation was made only to prejudice the mind of the court against the respondents. 5. After having heard the applicant in person and the learned Counsel for respondents and the learned APP for the State and after having perused the order passed by this Court on 19/11/2009, in my view, no case is made out for cancellation of bail which is granted to the respondents 6 herein. Respondents herein have not suppressed any facts as alleged by the applicant. On the contrary, compilation of documents which are filed by respondents in the earlier application indicate that, in the past also, the applicant had number of disputes and quarrels with her neighbours which had resulted in following CRs, NC complaints and Chapter cases being registered at Mulund Police Station, Mumbai. Sr.No C.R. Sections Status 1) 661/1999 U/s 336, 326, 323, 141, 142, 143, 147, 149, 152 IPC Not known 2) 667/2000 U/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 224, 225, 307, 332, 332, 333, 353, 427 IPC r/w 3, 25 Arms Act Session Commit C.C No.427/2001 Pending 3) 540/2000 U/s 452, 448, 341, 323, 427, 34 IPC Session Commit C.C. no.57/P/2001 pending. Non Cognizable Complaints. 1) 7799/1999 U/s 504 IPC 2) 7800/1999 U/s 504 IPC 3) 8198/1999 U/s 323, 504 IPC 4) 2495/2000 U/s 323, 506 IPC 5) 150/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 6) 151/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 7) 159/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 8) 173/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 7 9) 98/2000 10) 114/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 11) 112/2000 U/s 504, 506 IPC 12) 2495/2000 U/s 323, 504 IPC Chapter Cases 1) 3/2000 U/s 107, Cr.P.C. CC No.4/2000 2) 3/2001 U/s 110 (e)(g) Cr.P.C. CC No.3/2001 So far as injuries which were caused to the present applicant are concerned, it cannot be said that the said injuries were on any vital part of the body. It is probable that such injuries could have caused in the scuffle between applicant and the respondents. Respondents have alleged that the applicant had assaulted them and, thereafter, she had entered her room and had caused some self-inflicted injuries on her arm and had threatened the respondents that she would file false case against them. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, no case is made out for cancellation of bail. 7. Application for cancellation of bail is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)