Dismissed

Chandar Ashok Kakade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2005APPLN/2198/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail, the High Court rejected the prayer due to the applicant's antecedents, including a pending criminal case and a history of absconding on bail in a prior case. The court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite hearing and record delays if caused by applicant.

Chandar Ashok Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2198 OF 2005

¶4

 Chandar Ashok Kakade ...Applicant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

 Mr.R.S.Kate for Applicant.

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 APRIL 6, 2005.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

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

¶13

 2. Applicant is claiming parity along with

¶14

 co-accused. However, learned A.P.P. submits that

¶15

 although on merits, parity is available to the
 Applicant, but insofar as the present Applicant is
 concerned, there are already antecedents against
 him. The first C.R. registered against the

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 Applicant which trial is still pending, is for
 offence punishable under Sections 324, 452, 504
 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code being
 C.R.No.171 of 1997 at Phaltan Police Station. The
 second C.R. registered is for offence punishable
 under Section 307, 452, 427, 506 read with Section
 34 of the Indian Penal Code being C.R.No.174 of
 1998. Besides, the Applicant was granted bail in
 the second C.R. However, while on bail, the
 present offence has been committed. This is a good
 reason for refusing bail. Moreover, it is pointed
 out that in fact the Applicant had jumped the bail
 condition in C.R.No.174 of 1998, for which reason,
 arrest warrants were issued, but the Applicant was
 absconding. If it is so, there is no question for
 granting bail to such Applicant.

¶18

 3. To get over this position, learned Counsel
 for the Applicant contends that there are
 antecedents also against the co-accused, who has
 been released on bail. This submission, however,
 overlooks the peculiar facts of the present case as
 referred to above, which, in my view, are
 sufficient to reject prayer for bail. Hence, this

¶19

 : 3 :

¶20

 Application is rejected.

¶21

 4. As prayer for bail is rejected, the Trial
 Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the
 case and ensure early disposal of the trial. If
 the Trial Court is of the opinion that the
 Applicant is responsible for the delay of the
 trial, that fact be recorded in the Roznama, which
 will be reckoned as and when occasion arises.

¶22

 5. Application disposed of on the above
 terms.

¶23

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Chandar Ashok Kakade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandar Ashok Kakade 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

Mohammed Shahrukh Mukhtar Ahmed Hadi Vs R.K. Bhoi and Ors.

Vineeta W/O Girish Kalra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Kumavat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bharat Tukaram Redkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anju Ahuja Vs Mohan Thakurdas Chawla and Anr.

Jayashree Shantaram Manjarekar Vs Pandarinath Rajaram Yeram and Anr.