Allowed

Ajay Vijay Alhad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Dec 2004APPLN/5769/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail for three applicants in a criminal complaint, emphasizing the absence of an identification parade for two accused and the completion of investigation without fresh incriminating material for the third.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail for all three applicants subject to personal bond, sureties, non-influence of witnesses, fortnightly reporting, and cooperation with trial court.

Ajay Vijay Alhad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5769 OF 2004

¶4

 Ajay Vijay Alhad & Ors. ...Applicants

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

 Mr.C.K.Pendse with Mr.P.B.Patil for Applicants.

¶8

 Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 DECEMBER 21, 2004.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused
 the record.

¶13

 2. Insofar as Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are

¶14

 concerned, it is seen that no identification parade
 has been held, whereas, when those Applicants were
 in police custody, they were shown to the
 witnesses, who in turn, have stated to have
 identified them. That cannot be said to be

¶15

 : 2 :

¶16

 identification parade, as is required by the
 provisions of law. Besides, no recovery of the
 weapon has been made from these Applicants.
 Indeed, cash and mobile has been recovered from
 these Applicants, but as there is no identification
 parade, these Applicants deserve to be enlarged on
 bail.

¶17

 3. Insofar as Applicant No.1 is concerned,
 learned A.P.P. submits that there is no question
 of identification of Applicant No.1, as he was
 employed with the Complainant and was a known
 person. However, it is seen that the Applicant
 No.1 has been named as accused on suspicion of the
 complainant. No other incriminating material has
 been recovered at his instance. For that reason,
 even Applicant No.1 deserves to be enlarged on
 bail, especially because charge-sheet has been
 filed and investigation is complete. There is no
 possibility of early conclusion of the trial.
 Accordingly, the Application is allowed in respect
 of all the three Applicants, on the following
 terms:

¶18

 : 3 :

¶19

 (a) The Applicants are released on bail in
 connection with C.R.No.I-195/2004
 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station
 on executing personal bond in the sum of
 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each
 with two local sureties in the like
 amount.

¶20

 (b) The Applicants shall not influence the
 prosecution witnesses, nor shall tamper
 with the prosecution evidence in any
 manner whatsoever.

¶21

 (c) The Applicants shall report to the
 investigating officer once in fortnight on
 Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

¶22

 (d) The Applicants shall co-operate the
 Trial Court for early disposal of the
 trial. If the Trial Court is of the
 opinion that the Applicants are in any
 manner responsible for causing delay in

¶23

 : 4 :

¶24

 disposal of the trial, that fact shall be
 recorded in the Roznama, which can be a

¶25

 ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

 . Application disposed of on the above

¶27

 terms.

¶28

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Ajay Vijay Alhad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Vijay Alhad and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekananda Gurappa Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishnan Shivcharan Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

K.V. Adhone Garments Vs J.S. Gaud and Anr.

Divakar Jayram Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Shankar Appa Barkul . Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. .