Partly allowed

Abhiram Harshit Jha v. the Superintendent and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2005WP/584/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court granted bail to the petitioner, allowing relaxation of the surety condition of Rs. 2.25 lakhs for the release of a specific tanker, following a favorable order in a related case involving a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Relaxation of the condition of furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 for release of the tanker.

Abhiram Harshit Jha Vs the Superintendent and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.584 OF 2005

¶4

 Abhiram Harshit Jha ...Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The Superintendent, C.B.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.Gaurav Agarwal i/b Law Global for Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.Ejaz Khan for Respondent No.1.

¶9

 None for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶11

 APRIL 13, 2005.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 1. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on

¶14

 Board.

¶15

 2. This Petition has been filed in February

¶16

 2005 and was circulated for 21st March 2005. But
 was adjourned, as the same could not be taken due
 to paucity of time. Once again, matter was listed
 on 7th April 2005, but could not be taken up for

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 hearing.

¶19

 3. In the circumstances, matter has been got
 produced after giving notice to the Respondents.
 Respondent No.2 is a formal party. Mr.Khan appears
 for Respondent No.1. He has no objection if the
 matter is heard today.

¶20

 4. Reliance is placed on the order passed by
 this Court dated March 29, 2005 passed in favour of
 co-accused Ajay Shah. Counsel for the Respondent
 No.1 has no objection if the order passed by the
 lower Court is relaxed insofar as condition of
 furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,25,000/-
 (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty-five Thousand) for release
 of tanker bearing registration No.MH-04-BG-8609.

¶21

 5. Petition succeeds to this limited extent

¶22

 only.

¶23

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Abhiram Harshit Jha v. the Superintendent and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhiram Harshit Jha v. the Superintendent and Anr.

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nitin Shrikant Shetye

Samir Gul Mohamad Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Machindra Dune Vs Jayshri Dilip Dune and Ors.

Ishwar Damu Kamble Vs Vijay Haribhau Phalke and Anr.

Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.