Allowed

Pandurang Vasudeo Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2006WP/669/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Magistrate's order rejecting discharge applications and directing the accused to approach under Section 482 CrPC. The Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the discharge applications based on delay within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Magistrate to decide discharge application on ground of delay within six weeks.

Pandurang Vasudeo Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.669 OF 2006

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.670 OF 2006

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.671 OF 2006

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.672 OF 2006

¶11

 Pandurang Vasudeo Patil : Petitioner.

¶12

 versus

¶13

 The State of Maharashtra : Respondent.

¶14

 Mr.Nitin Pradhan with Mrs.S.D.Khot for the

¶15

 petitioner.

¶16

 Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for the State.

¶17

 CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE

¶18

 V.K.TAHILRAMANI JJ.

¶19

 DATED : APRIL 05, 2006.

¶20

¶21

COMMON P.C.

¶22

 1. The order of the High Court, to which a
 reference was made by the learned counsel
 Mr.Pradhan, is on page 5 of the Writ Petition
 No.669 of 2006. The said order is common in all
 these writ petitions. As per that order the
 Magistrate was required to decide the
 applications of the petitioner for discharge on
 their own merits. However, the Magistrate by
 this impugned order dated 5.1.2006 has rejected
 those applications for discharge and directed the
 accused to file an application before this Court
 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶23

 2. The learned APP could not support this
 order. On the face of it, the impugned order is
 wrong. It was not necessary and proper for the
 Magistrate to find out vai-media and avoid
 compliance of the order of this court.
 Therefore, the impugned order, in all the
 matters, is set aside and quashed. The matters
 are sent back to the Magistrate with direction to
 him to decide the applications for discharge of
 the petitioner on the ground of delay. He should

¶24

¶25

 do so within six weeks from today without fail.
 No extension on any count will be granted.
 Advocate for the petitioner and the APP before
 the Magistrate shall give full cooperation to the
 Magistrate in finally disposing of the matters
 within the stipulated period. All the petitions
 are disposed of.

¶26

 3. The concerned Magistrate to act upon an
 ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by

¶27

 the Court Sheristedar.

¶28

 [D.G.DESHPANDE,J]

¶29

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J]

Pandurang Vasudeo Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Vasudeo 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

Sayed Kifayatulla Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rochiram Pribhadas Kalwani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat Brahmadutt Singh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Liladhar Namdeo Chopade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Bhaguram Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Mahesh Mehta and Anr.