Dismissed

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Aug 2004WP/853/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, brother of a deceased pillion rider in a motor-accident case, approached the court reinstating investigation allegedly not being proper. Court observed police was actively investigating and satisfied that steps taken were appropriate. Petition dismissed without interfering in investigation or bail matters.

What did the court decide?

Court declined to interfere with investigation and bail matters; directed parties to be supplied copies of the order.

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 853 OF 2004

¶3

 Chandrashekhar Shivmurat Singh ...Petitioner
 V/s.

¶4

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent

¶5

 Mr. Ganesh Gole, Adv. for the petitioner
 Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶6

CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE AND
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
 DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2004

¶7

P.C..

¶8

 1. Heard Mr. Gole for the petitioner. Mr.

¶9

 Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. appears for the respondents.

¶10

 2. This petition is filed by the brother of one
 Sahilender Singh who died on 9.4.2004 at about 2.30
 a.m.. He was sitting as a pillion rider behind

¶11

 one Rishikesh Pandey on motor-cycle and has fallen
 from that motor-cycle. The case of the petitioner
 is that the motor-cycle was given a dash from back

¶12

 side and later on has been over run by one
 Tata-Sumo by two persons i.e. Omprakash Tiwari and
 Ramakant Pandey. The petition has been filed
 apprehending that the investigating agency is going
 improperly. One affidavit in reply was filed
 earlier on 11.6.2004. Second affidavit was also
 filed with complete set of papers containing the
 photo copies of the action papers. From these
 papers it is seen that right from 9.4.2004 the
 police are looking in the matter and that process

¶13

 (-2-)

¶14

 has been continuing and last record is of
 31.7.2004.

¶15

 3. As far as the case made out by the petitioner
 is concerned, the police are looking into that and
 they have not arrived at a final conclusion. Mr.
 Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. states that two
 persons in the present case have been granted
 anticipatory bail and the police have received
 authorisation from the State Government to move for
 cancellation of the said bails. It is for the
 prosecution to take appropriate decisions. We are
 presently satisfied that by and large the steps
 taken by the concerned police authorities are
 appropriate. We do not think that at this stage we
 should interfere and direct anything to the
 concerned police. We accept the steps taken by the
 police. They should see to it that whoever are the
 accused should be brought to book, but at the same
 time the innocent are not prosecuted.

¶16

 4. With the above observations, this petition is
 disposed of.

¶17

 5. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Mhaispurkar is at
 liberty to collect the photo copies of the action
 papers filed by the respondents.

¶18

 6. Parties be supplied copies of this order duly

¶19

 (-3-)

¶20

 authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekar Shivmurat Singh 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

Commodore Narinder M.Pandit Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner, Pimpri-Chinchwad Mun. Cor. Vs Shri. Harishchandra N. Orape and Ors.

D.Bhambri,I.O.,N.C.B.,Mumbai Vs Cyprian Chim Ihediwa and Anr.

Abdul Razzaq Abdul Sattar Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sheela Rani Nandpal Vs Sunil Kumar Nandpal and Ors.

Rajan Pandurang Parkar Vs the State of Maharashtra