Dismissed

Sumanagala Ramesh Satte and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Apr 2005APPLN/2182/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed this anticipatory bail application, holding that the seriousness of the offence and evidence of complicity in a suicide case precluded it. Limited protection was granted contingent upon surrender and daily reporting to the Investigating Officer before a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; limited protection granted conditional on surrender before May 3, 2005, and daily reporting between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Sumanagala Ramesh Satte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2182 OF 2005

¶4

 Mrs.Sumanagala Ramesh Satte & Anr. ...Applicants

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

 Mr.A.H.Patil for Applicants.

¶8

 Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 APRIL 26, 2005.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

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

¶13

 2. I see no reason to depart from the

¶14

 conclusion reached by the lower Court in rejecting
 the Anticipatory Bail Application preferred by the
 present Applicants, having regard to the
 seriousness of the offence and material on record

¶15

 to indicate the complicity of the Applicants. The
 suicide note names the Applicants. Besides the

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 suicide note, the statements of the father, mother
 and sister of the deceased also support the
 prosecution case, which indicate the complicity of
 the Applicants. If it is so, not a case for
 anticipatory bail. Hence, dismissed.

¶18

 3. The Applicants are, however, granted
 limited protection to surrender before the
 appropriate Court on or before 3rd May 2005 and
 apply for regular bail if so advised, failing
 which, it will be open to the Investigating Officer
 to proceed against the Applicants, in accordance
 with law.

¶19

 4. In the meantime, as condition for the

¶20

 limited protection, the Applicants shall report to
 the Investigating Officer daily from tomorrow
 between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. or such other time
 or place, as may be required by the Investigating
 Officer and co-operate with the investigation of
 the case. On failure to comply with this
 condition, it will be open to the Investigating
 Officer to proceed against the Applicants in
 accordance with law.

¶21

 : 3 :

¶22

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Sumanagala Ramesh Satte and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanagala Ramesh Satte and Anr. 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

Sunita Pavankumar Morarka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayesh Mahendra Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fazila W/O.Abdul Gaffar Mahimi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ganesh Narayan Shinde and Anr.

Yaseer Mohammed Ayyub Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Bajrang Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra