Disposed

Babasaheb Pandit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Feb 2005WP/2574/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty from custody pending investigation upon giving an undertaking to appear when required and not interfere with witnesses. The 164 statements were directed to be returned to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty from custody pending investigation upon undertaking to appear when required; petition disposed of; 164 statements directed to be returned to Magistrate.

Babasaheb Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2574 OF 2004

¶4

 Shri Babasaheb Pandit Patil ..Petitoner
 Versus

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

 Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Amit B. Borkar for petitioner

¶7

 Mr.D.S.Mhaispurar, APP for State

¶8

 Mr.S.S.Patwardhan & P.G.Chavan for Respondent No.2.

¶9

 CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKER &

¶10

 P.V.KAKADE, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 16TH FEBURARY, 2005.

¶12

 P.C.

¶13

 1. Heard the learned advocates for the Petitioner

¶14

 and the Respondents. It is stated that the
 investigation is almost complete. We have also perused
 the 164 Statements recorded in the matter. The
 Investigation Officer has also stated that for the

¶15

 purpose of concluding the investigation and before
 filing of the charge-sheet the presence of the

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 Petitioner is not required though the same would be
 needed at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
 Considering the same the learned advocate for the
 Petitioner has fairly submitted that he is not pressing
 for prayer clause (b) in the Petition in relation to the
 quashing of FIR. He has further submitted that the
 Petitioner would be available as and when required by
 the police and also will appear before the Magistrate at
 the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The learned
 advocate for the petitioner has also stated that the
 petitioner will not interfere in any manner in the
 investigation and shall not influence the witensses in
 any manner. We accept the said statement. The
 Petitioner to appear before the Magistrate at the time
 of filing of the charge-sheet as per the intimation
 given by the Investigation Officer and shall cooperate
 with the Investigation Officer for completion of the
 investigation. Since his detention in custody is not
 required for the investigation, the statement in that
 regard of the Investigation Officer is accepted and
 hence no further direction is required in that regard.
 Needless to say that the Petitioner to appear before the
 Magistrate after filing of the charge-sheet. With this
 direction the Petition stands disposed of.

¶18

 : 3 :

¶19

 2. The statements recorded under section 164, which

¶20

 are produced for our perusal, are required to be
 returned to the concerned Magistrate and the Registry
 shall return the same in sealed cover and the
 Investigation Officer shall deliver the same to the
 Court of Magistrate at Panhala, Kolhapur.

¶21

 (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)

¶22

 (P.V.Kakade,J.)

Babasaheb Pandit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Pandit Patil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Desai Vs Vijay N.Shah and Ors.

Bharat Bhanudas Lale and Ors. Vs Surekha Pradeep Lale and Ors.

Sangharaj Bhogappa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Ravindra Pandurang Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tahira Suleman Sayyed