Dismissed

Sandeep Dharamshankar Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Feb 2005WP/2327/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition alleging police officers at Thane Police Station were influencing witnesses to weaken a corruption case, the bench refused interference as the petitioner failed to produce any record showing such influence or threat.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected as no case was made out for interference given the inability to point out material revealing witness influence.

Sandeep Dharamshankar Singh and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 (G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2327 OF 2004

¶4

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s
 order or directions and
 Registrar’s order.

¶5

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

 Shri P.M.Havnur for the petitioners.

¶7

 Shri D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the
 respondent.

¶8

 CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
 &
 P.V.KAKADE, JJ

¶9

 DATED: 17th February, 2005.

¶10

 P.C.

¶11

 . The grievance of the learned

¶12

 Advocate for the petitioners is that the
 officers at Thane Police Station are
 influencing the witnesses so as to weaken
 the case filed in relation to the corruption
 activities on the part of the police
 officers. Inspite of the repeated requests
 to the learned Advocate for the petitioners
 to point out from the records a single
 statement which can reveal that any witness
 concerned in the matter was in any manner
 influenced or threatened by any of the

¶13

 - 2 -

¶14

 police officers from Thane Police Station,
 the learned Advocate is unable to point out
 any such material in that regard. There
 being no other ground disclosed for grant of
 relief in the nature of prayer clause (b),
 as already the other reliefs are not pressed
 for, there is no case made out for
 interference in the matter. The petition is
 therefore rejected.

¶15

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

¶16

 (P.V.KAKADE, J )

Sandeep Dharamshankar Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Dharamshankar Singh and Ors. 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

Mujibur Rehaman Abdul Ganikhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Pandurang Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tahira Suleman Sayyed

Ashok Bhaguji Zombade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gotya @ Savala Chima Fulaware Vs the State of Maharashtra