Allowed

Dhanpati Devi Samatraj Laddha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2005APPLN/1655/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application alleging error in granting bail, the High Court set aside the lower court's order. The accused were granted interim detention release until April 28, 2005, to surrender and file a regular bail application. The court noted the lower court's reasoning was contrary to the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order set aside; respondants granted time to surrender and apply for regular bail by April 28, 2005.

Dhanpati Devi Samatraj Laddha Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1655 OF 2005.

¶4

 Smt. Dhanpati Devi Sampatraj Laddha. ...Applicant.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶7

 Shri Ramrao Adik, Sr.Counsel with Shri Rishi Bhuta, for
 applicant.

¶8

 Shri A.S.Gadkari, APP for State.

¶9

 Shri A.P.Mundargi with Shri Balkrishna D. Joshi, for
 respondent No.2 and 3.

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J
 DATE : APRIL 19, 2005

¶11

 P.C. :-

¶12

 1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶13

 2. This application takes exception to the order

¶14

 passed by Shri A.D.Babrekar, Additional Sessions Judge,
 Greater Mumbai, granting bail to respondent No.2 and 3,
 accused No.2 and 3 respectively. The sole reason which
 influenced the trial Judge to grant bail to respondent
 No. 2 and 3 can be seen from the paragraph Nos. 9 and

¶15

 13 of the order. The grievance in the present
 application by the complainant is that the opinion so
 recorded is error apparent on the face of the record,
 in as much as the F.I.R. clearly spells out the

¶16

¶17

 prosecution case to the contrary.

¶18

 3. After considering rival submision, as the
 investigation is completed and chargesheet has been
 filed, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
 and 3 on instruction of Respondent No.2 who is
 personally present in the court, requested this court
 not to record detailed reason while disposing of this
 application and instead leave all questions open to be
 decided by the Lower Court afresh while considering the
 regular bail application to be filed by respondent No.2
 and 3 upon surrendering before the appropriate court
 within specified time, as may be granted by this court.

¶19

 4. Accordinly, this application is allowed. The
 impugned order is set aside. However, respondent No.2
 and 3 are granted time till 28th April, 2005 to
 surrender before the appropriate court and apply for
 regular bail afresh, which will be considered in
 accordance with the law, on its own merit, uninfluenced
 by the impugned order or the present order.

¶20

 5. The respondent No.2 and 3, not to be arrested till
 28/4/2005 or till they surrender before the appropriate
 court, which ever is earlier.

¶21

¶22

 6. Copy of this order be marked to Registrar

¶23

 General, who shall place the same before the
 appropriate authority for necessary action, as it is
 obvious that the sole basis on which the learned Judge
 of Lower court proceeded to grant bail in favour of the
 respondent No.2 and 3 is contrary to the contents of
 the F.I.R and the offence is one under section 304 B,

¶24

 498 A, 406, 34 I.P.C.

Dhanpati Devi Samatraj Laddha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpati Devi Samatraj Laddha v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

M/S. Win Exports Vs M/S . Apte Amalgamations Ltd. and Ors.

Vijayalaxmi Murlidharan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Ahmad Abdul Sattari Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another.

Dhondiba Gemu Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Laxman Kolap Vs Shobha Ravindra Kolap and Ors.

Dhondiba Gemu Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.