Disposed

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2005WP/578/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay adjudicated a criminal writ petition alleging impropriety in police investigations. The court held that while witness statements for one case were already recorded, the DC of Police Zone-X was directed to minutely examine the papers of the second case and ensure necessary investigation to book culprits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai, to minutely examine case papers and conduct necessary investigation to book culprits.

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.578 OF 2005 Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain .. Petitioner

¶3

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain

¶4

v/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Subhash Jha with Mr.Ghanshyam Upadhyay and Mr.Gaurav Agrawal and Mr.D.Ghosh i/by M/s.Law Global for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.S.R.Borulkar, Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 20th October, 2005.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

In	this petitio	n, the		grievance	of the
petitioner	is that	the	inve	stigation	of C.R.No.334
of 2003	of M.I.D.	C.	Police	Station	which is
subsequently	transferred	to	the	Economic	Offences
Wing,	GB CB CID,	Mumbai	vide	C.R.No.23	of 2003 and
C.R.No.109	of 2004	of Po	wai	Police	Station, Mumbai,
is not	conducted	properly		and	therefore, the
investigation	of both	these	cases	be	transferred to

¶12

the Central Bureau of Investigation or State C.I.D.

¶13

or any other investigating agency.

¶14

2.	We hav	e	heard the	learned	co	unsel	appeari	ng for
the	petitioner	at	considerable	length.		He	made	a
serious	grievance	a	bout the	invest	igation.		He	took
us	through	some	documents	of	the	concer	ned	police
station	and		contended	that	the	spe	cific	directions

¶15

-2-

¶16

given by the higher officers were flouted. The
accused were not arrested and the investigation was
done in a most perfunctory manner. So far as the
investigation of C.R.No.23 of 2003 by Economic
Offences Wing is concerned, we find that this court
has passed an order on 25th August, 2005 directing
the investigating agency to record the statements
of the witnesses as per the letter dated 21st
August, 2005, addressed to the Public Prosecutor by
the petitioner’s advocate. We are informed by
Mr.Borulkar, the learned Public Prosecutor that
accordingly, statements of the witnesses have been
recorded. Since the statements of the witnesses
have been recorded pursuant to the order passed by
this court, if the police get any further leads, we
expect the police to follow up those leads and
carry out further investigation, if necessary, in
accordance with law. Mr.Borulkar, on instructions
of the concerned officer, states that the police

¶17

shall do so. In view of this, we would not like to

¶18

pass further order in respect of this case.

¶19

3.		So	far	as C.R.	No.109	of	2004	of	Powai	Police
Station		is	co	ncerned,	the		invest	igation	is	in
progress.			The	petitio	ner’s		main		grievance	was
against		re	spondent	No.3	Mr	.Jai	Jeet		Singh,	then
Deputy			Commissio	ner of	P	olice,	Zo	ne-VIII,		Mumbai.
We	are	in	formed	that M	r.Jai	Jeet	Sin	gh	is no	longer
incharge		of	said	Zone	and	now	the	charge	of	the

¶20

said Zone is taken by Mr.Ravindra Prabhakar

¶21

Sengaonkar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X.

¶22

-3-

¶23

4.	Having gone	through		the	petition	and	the
annexures	thereto	and	having	he	ard the		serious
grievances	made by	the	lear	ned	counsel	for	the
petitioner,	we	direct		M	r.Ravindra		Prabhakar
Sengaonkar,	Deputy	Commissi	oner	of	Police,		Zone-X
to go	through	all the	papers	of	the	said	case
minutely	and direct	such		i	nvestigation	as	is
necessary	in the	case,	so	that	the main		culprits
would	be booked.	We	hope	and	trust	that	Shri
Ravindra	Prabhakar	Sengaonkar	w	ill	carry out		this
important	task which	we	have	put	on his		shoulders
properly.	We	also e	xpect		Mr.Ravindra		Prabhakar

¶24

Sengaonkar should take expeditious steps in the

¶25

investigation.

¶26

In view of the above observations, this

¶27

petition is disposed of.

¶28

(SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶29

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Kumar Shantilal Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

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

Manish Dinesh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vrushali Machhidra Keni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jairam Ramchandra Dive Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogendra @ Tillu Ramlal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantaram Babu Ganave Vs Manda Gajanan Shedge and Anr.