Dismissed

Shankar Ankush Kawade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Sept 2007APPLN/2856/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge rejected the bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 326, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, citing active role played by the applicants and medical injuries to the complainant as sufficient material to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.

Shankar Ankush Kawade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2856 of 2007

¶4

Shankar Ankush Kawade & Anr

¶5

..Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

..Respondent.

¶9

Mr Ujwal Agandsurve, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

Mr Rajesh More, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM: V. C. DAGA,J. DATED: 20TH Sept, 2007.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicants

¶14

and learned APP for the State.

¶15

Perused application and the material

¶16

available on record.

¶17

The applicants are seeking bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. 64 of 2007 registered with Karmala Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 326, 323, read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

¶18

4.	The	learned	counsel	for the appli	cants
submits	t	hat	ten	accused	persons	have	already
been	enlarged	on	bail	under	Section	439	of the

¶19

[ 2 ]

¶20

Cr.P.C.,whereas, the present applicants are
seeking bail under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C.contending that they are falsely

¶21

implicated.

¶22

Having seen the active role played by
the present applicants in the commission of
offence in the light of injuries suffered by
the injured complainant and having seen the
Medico Legal Certificate placed on record, in
my considered view, sufficient material is
available on record to connect the present

¶23

applicants with the offence alleged against

¶24

them. This is not a case for grant of bail.

¶25

In the result, the application is

¶26

rejected.

¶27

(V.C. DAGA,J.)

Shankar Ankush Kawade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Ankush Kawade and Anr. 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

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anant Gajanan Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjitsingh Premsingh Dasana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khatib Imran Akhil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Annasaheb Hubale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharma Dattu Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra