When Question Of Liberty Of Citizen Is Involved, Pre-Arrest Bail Applications Must Be Decided Expeditiously: Bombay HC

If the lower courts do not decide such matters, then the high court is burdened with them, it added.

A single bench of Justice Sandeep Marne made these observations while expressing displeasure with a lower court at Kalyan in Thane district for not deciding expeditiously the pre-arrest bail plea of Waman Mhatre, a local leader of the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.

Mhatre is accused of making derogatory remarks against a woman journalist during the last week's protests in Badlapur over the sexual abuse of two kindergarten girls.

Mhatre filed an appeal in the high court, claiming that his pre-arrest bail plea filed on August 22 before the Kalyan sessions court was not yet heard and that even his application seeking interim protection was not considered.

He claimed that the sessions court was adjourning his plea on every occasion and that it is now scheduled for a hearing on August 29.

Justice Marne directed the sessions judge to decide Mhatre' application on August 29 itself.

"A report about the status of the anticipatory bail application shall be placed by the sessions judge before the registry department of high court in the evening of August 29 itself," Justice Marne said.

Justice Marne said when the plea pertains to the liberty of a person then ideally the court could have at least considered the application seeking interim protection.

"When the question of liberty of a citizen is involved, it is necessary that application for pre-arrest bail is taken up and decided either finally or at least for grant of interim protection in an expeditious manner," the High Court said.

"If lower courts do not decide such matters, then the high court is burdened with such matters. They should decide. The problem is that a decision is not taken," it added.

The High Court, while disposing of Mhatre's appeal, said the sessions court shall take up and decide his pre-arrest bail plea on August 29.

Mhatre's advocate sought the court to at least take an oral assurance from the police that no coercive action will be taken until the sessions court decides plea. The additional public prosecutor then said "nothing will happen".

A woman journalist had on August 21 filed a complaint against Mhatre for allegedly making derogatory and offensive remarks when she was reporting the protests at Badlapur over the incident of sexual assault of two minor girls inside their school premises by a male attendant.

As per the complaint, Mhatre allegedly said the reporter was acting "as if she herself had been raped".

Mhatre claimed that his remarks were being misconstrued.

Cause Title: Waman Barku Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Viresh Purwant a/w R. Kale

Respondent: Advocate Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal