Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Bombay HC12 Sept 2005APPLN/5195/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected criminal applications filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail granted to four accused in May 2003. Finding no grounds for absconding, witness tampering, or false charges despite the trial having commenced, the court held it was not a fit case for cancellation and disposed of the applications.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the respondents was not cancelled; applications rejected and matter disposed of.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5195 OF 2003

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake ...Respondent

¶7

 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5196 OF 2003

¶8

 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶9

 Versus

¶10

 Suhas Hanmant Sorate ...Respondent

¶11

 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5197 OF 2003

¶12

 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶13

 Versus

¶14

 Niwas Hanmant Sorate ...Respondent

¶15

 ALONGWITH
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5223 OF 2003

¶16

 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶17

 Versus

¶18

 Sagar Sambhaji Padalkar ...Respondent

¶19

 Mr. D.P. Adsule A.P.P. for applicant-State in
 Appln. No. 5195 and 5223 of 2003.

¶20

 Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P.for applicant-State in
 Appln. No.5196 and 5197 of 2003.

¶21

 Mr. Abhinandan Vagyani, Adv. for Respondent in all
 applications.

¶22

 (-2-)

¶23

CORAM:SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶24

DATED: 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

¶25

P. C.:-

¶26

 1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State and
 the learned advocate for the respondents i.e.
 original accused.

¶27

 2. The State has preferred these applications for
 cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in
 May 2003. The ground for cancellation of bail is
 that there was sufficient material to show the
 complicity of the respondents in the crime and hence,
 bail ought not to have been granted to the
 respondents. In the present case, it is an admitted
 fact that the investigation is over and the charge
 sheet has been filed. Charges have also been framed
 in the present case and the case is kept before the
 trial court today for recording the evidence.

¶28

 3. As far as the present respondents are concerned,
 it is not the prosecution case that they are likely
 to abscond or that they have flouted any of the
 conditions imposed on them when bail was granted to
 them. So also, it is not the prosecution case that
 any of these respondents have threatened any of the
 prosecution witnesses or in any way tampered with any

¶29

 (-3-)

¶30

 of the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

 4. As far as the respondent Mr. Niwas Hanmant
 Sorate is concerned, N.C. No.38 of 2004 was lodged
 at Rajarampuri police station against him by Mr.
 Keshav Gavli i.e. father of the deceased. However,
 the police have enquired into the said complaint and
 it is found that the said complaint was false. Thus,
 there is no material against any of the present
 respondents that they had in any way tampered with
 the prosecution witnesses.

¶32

 5. Looking to the fact that the trial in the present
 case has started and there are no allegations against
 any of the respondents, at this stage, I do not think
 that this is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to
 the respondents. Hence, applications are rejected.
 The trial relating to Sessions Case No. 80 of 2003
 pending in the Sessions Court at Kolhapur, is
 expedited.

¶33

 5. Applications are disposed of.

¶34

 *****

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

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

Kiran Dinkar Patil Vs Prashant Mahadeo Karande and Anr.

Bebitai Ramling Deshmukh and Anr. Vs Karmayogi S.R. Paricharak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt. and Anr.

Ghalappa Sardar Nadgeri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravindra Mahadeo Dhadake

Marappa @ Gurusidha Bhimrao Padavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Viren Bhansali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.