Dismissed

Malshidhappa Sidmalppa Shilwant v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Aug 2007WP/1429/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected three criminal writ petitions challenging the cancellation of bail. The Court held that issues regarding the applicability of the MCOC Act must be raised before the Special Court and that petitions challenging bail cancellation must follow alternative remedies, not writ petitions under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were rejected as the petitioners must challenge the bail cancellation in appropriate proceedings before the alternative remedy forum.

Malshidhappa Sidmalppa Shilwant Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1429 OF 2007

¶3

 Malshidhappa Sidmalppa
 Shilwant .... Petitioner
 Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
 Shri Prafulla B. Shah for the Petitioner.
 Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the Respondent.
 WITH
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2007
 Ramchandra Janardan
 Pedgaonkar .... Petitioner
 Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
 Shri Prafulla B. Shah for the Petitioner.
 Shri P.S. Hingorani, APP, for the Respondent.
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1431 OF 2007
 Anant Vilasrao Chintamani .... Petitioner
 Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
 Shri Prafulla B. Shah for the Petitioner.
 Shri P.S. Hingorani, APP, for the Respondent.

¶4

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
 Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 02, 2007

¶5

P.C:

¶6

[2]

¶7

 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are
 challenging the order passed by the District Judge-1 and
 Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur on 27-7-2007
 whereby the application filed by the investigating
 officer for cancellation of the bail granted to the
 petitioners in C.R.No.261 of 2006 on the ground that the
 Special I.G.P., Nasik Division by his order dated
 28-5-2007 had allowed to invoke the provisions of the
 MCOC Act against the accused persons has been allowed.
 The said order is sought to be challenged on the ground
 that the point which was sought to be raised by the
 petitioners about the non-applicability of the MCOC Act
 to the case of the petitioners has been wrongly rejected
 by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶8

 2. The impugned order on the relevant aspect reads
 thus:

¶9

 "Second point in this case is whether
 MCOCA was invoked properly or not. It
 does not fall in the jurisdiction of
 this Court. Therefore, the averment to
 that effect made on behalf of the

¶10

 accused need not be considered."

¶11

 3. Apparently, therefore, the issue regarding the
 applicability of the provisions of the MCOC Act have not

¶12

[3]

¶13

 been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and
 rightly so because he has no jurisdiction to deal with
 the said aspect. The point in that regard will have to
 be considered by the Special Court under the MCOC Act,
 if raised by the petitioners at appropriate time in
 appropriate proceedings. Being so, no fault can be
 found with the impugned order passed by the learned
 Sessions Judge refusing to deal with the point sought to
 be raised in the matter.

¶14

 4. As regards the point regarding the cancellation of
 the bail is concerned, the petitioners, if they so
 desire, will have to challenge the same in appropriate
 proceedings before appropriate forum and not by way of
 writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
 India. The efficacious alternative remedy being
 available to the petitioners in that regard, question of
 entertaining writ petition in exercise of power under
 Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise.

¶15

 5. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the
 petitions fail and are rejected.

¶16

 (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)

¶17

 sjs/A7cwpg1429.7

Malshidhappa Sidmalppa Shilwant v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malshidhappa Sidmalppa Shilwant 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

Jafer Paigambar Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nazma Samsher Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sujata Pradeep Shirsolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

U.T.I. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs S.P. Apsingekar and Anr.

Tayyaba Kaussar @ Rina Shahid Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devendra Pasad Sharma Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.