Disposed

Shanu Ranchhod Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2005APPLN/1405/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a single-paragraph criminal application regarding cancellation of anticipatory bail, held that the matter is dead as the beneficiary is not an accused. The non-cognizable offence was noted for institutional disposal.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed as the anticipatory bail order was worked out to be null since the beneficiary was not an accused.

Shanu Ranchhod Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1405 OF 2005

¶4

 Shanu Ranchhod Patel ...Applicant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Applicant.

¶8

 Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.

¶9

 Mr.A.P.Vanarse for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶11

 APRIL 11, 2005.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶14

 2. This Application is for cancelling the
 anticipatory bail granted in favour of Respondent
 No.2 by the Sessions Judge, Pune in C.R.No.677 of
 2004 registered at Kothrud Police Station.

¶15

 3. Learned A.P.P., on instructions, states

¶16

 that the Respondent No.2 has not been named as

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 accused in C.R.No.677 of 2004. If it is so, there
 is no occasion for considering the challenge to the
 anticipatory bail order passed in favour of the
 Respondent No.2 by the Sessions Judge, which is
 subject matter of this Application.

¶19

 4. Learned A.P.P., however, further points
 out that the Investigating Officer has registered
 non-cognizable offence against the Respondent No.2
 and necessary steps are being taken to pursue that
 complaint to its logical end.

¶20

 5. Accordingly, in my opinion, nothing
 survives for consideration in the present
 Application, for the simple reason that the
 Respondent No.2 is no more named as accused in
 C.R.No.677 of 2004 registered at Kothrud Police
 Station and the anticipatory bail order passed in
 his favour by the Sessions Judge, Pune, therefore,
 is worked out in that sense.

¶21

 6. Insofar as new non-cognizable offence
 registered against the Respondent No.2, needless to
 observe that the appropriate Authorities will take

¶22

 : 3 :

¶23

 necessary steps to take that matter to its logical

¶24

 end, as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

 7. Application disposed of accordingly.

¶26

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Shanu Ranchhod Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanu Ranchhod Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Hanmant Jagannath Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Jaywant Shah Vs Dhanashri Pradip Shah and Anr.

Vishnu Tatoba Mane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amey Pandurang Kurade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Indru Thadani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Balaso Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra