Allowed

Yashwant Keshavrao Mulik v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Apr 2005APPLN/2068/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case registered since 1999, rejecting the prosecution's justification that arrest was necessary for recovery, and imposed standard conditions valid until the filing of the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in connection with C.R. No. 22 of 1999, subject to execution of personal bond, provision of sureties, and adherence to specific conditions including cooperation with investig

Yashwant Keshavrao Mulik Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2068 OF 2005

¶4

 Yashwant Keshavrao Mulik ...Applicant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

 Mr.A.K.Suryawanshi for Applicant.

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 APRIL 1, 2005.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused

¶13

 the record.

¶14

 2. The offence in question is registered as

¶15

 back as in 1999. Learned A.P.P. fairly accepts
 that investigation is in progress since then.
 However, he is not in a position to give any
 justification why the Investigating Officer has now

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 suddenly thought it necessary to arrest the
 Applicant. No material is produced before the
 Court to offer justification, so as to entitle the
 Investigating Officer to arrest the Applicant. One
 reason which was attempted to be canvassed before
 this Court is that the amount for which Public
 Exchequer has been cheated, can be recovered only
 after the arrest of the Applicant. This
 submission, to say the least, is misadventure of
 the power to investigate in respect of criminal
 offence. That power cannot be converted into
 recovery proceedings.

¶18

 3. Taking overall view of the matter, I am
 inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present
 Applicant in the fact situation of the present
 case, for a limited period on the following terms:

¶19

 (a) The Applicant is granted anticipatory bail
 in connection with C.R.No.22 of 1999 registered
 with Solapur Taluka Police Station on executing
 personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
 Twenty-five Thousand) with two local sureties in
 the like amount.

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 (b) The Applicant shall not influence the
 prosecution witnesses or tamper with the

¶22

 prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

 (c) Applicant shall co-operate for the purpose

¶24

 of investigation in all respects and abide by the
 conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal
 Procedure Code, as applicable to the State of
 Maharashtra.

¶25

 (d) This order shall enure in favour of the

¶26

 Applicant till the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶27

 4. Application disposed of on the above

¶28

 terms.

¶29

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Yashwant Keshavrao Mulik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Keshavrao Mulik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisar Ahmed Sidha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aslam Badruddin Shaikh Vs Gulabrao Pol and Ors.

Rahul Pravin Beri Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Mansoor Rashid Sayed Vs Whida Mansoor Sayed and Anr.

Paranna Madiwalappa Bhinge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iranna Parappa Panche Vs the State of Maharashtra