Disposed

Manish Dinesh Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2005WP/2279/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the demand for an interim bond and the show cause notice, the High Court held that an interim bond cannot be demanded unless the Magistrate first commences the enquiry. The court directed the police to follow correct procedure and permitted the petitioner to reply to the notice while refusing to quash it. The proceedings were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; show cause notice not quashed; interim bond demand stayed until enquiry commences; petitioner directed to submit reply and cooperate.

Manish Dinesh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

MSS
 : 1 :

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2005

¶5

 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office :
 Memoranda of Coram, :
 appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders
 orders or directions :
 & Registrar’s orders. : .
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. Rishi Bhuta for petitioner
 Mr. D. R. More, APP for R-1
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
 ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
 DATED: 18/10/2005
P.C.:-

¶6

 We have heard the learned counsel

¶7

 for the petitioner.

¶8

 2. In this petition, the
 petitioner has prayed that proceedings
 in chapter case No. 31/2005 on the
 file of Special Executive Magistrate,
 Andheri (East), Mumbai, be stayed and
 the order of Special Executive
 Magistrate directing the petitioner to
 furnish interim bond be set aside. It
 is further prayer that chapter case
 No. 31/2005 and the show cause notice
 dated 9/9/05 be quashed.

¶9

MSS

¶10

 : 2 :

¶11

 3. Our attention has been drawn

¶12

 to the judgment of the Supreme Court
 in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M. Monghyr &

¶13

 Ors., A.I.R. 1971 SC 2486. The bare
 perusal of the judgment makes it clear
 that interim bond cannot be asked from
 a person unless the Magistrate starts
 the enquiry. The Supreme Court has
 observed that enquiry should be made
 before asking interim bond from a
 person. Therefore, the respondents
 cannot ask the petitioner to execute
 an interim bond unless they start
 theinquiry.

¶14

 4. We have gone through notice

¶15

 which is annexed at Exhibit "B" to the

¶16

 petiton. We are not inclined to quash
 the show cause notice. The
 proceedings must go on but we expect
 the police to follow the correct
 procedure. Unless they start the

¶17

 enquiry they cannot ask the petitioner
 to execute the bond.

¶18

 5. We, therefore, direct the

¶19

MSS

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 petitioner to submit his reply, if any

¶22

 to the respondents and participate in

¶23

 the enquiry. After the inquiry is

¶24

 started, the respondent will be at
 liberty to direct the petitioner to

¶25

 execute in interim bond which

¶26

 obviously will abide by the final

¶27

 order which will be passed by the

¶28

 respondent. Petitioner shall

¶29

 cooperate with the enquiry.

¶30

 6. Writ petition is disposed of.

Manish Dinesh Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Dinesh Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Maruti Garadkar @ Shiva Garadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Punjaji Jondhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagwan Shetiba Vitkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Kuamr Shreerang Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vrushali Machhidra Keni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhaskar Nagnath Kumbhar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.