Dismissed

Hidaittulla @ Tulla Gaffoor Sayyed and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2008APPLN/158/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application seeking relaxation of a bail condition prohibiting entry into Alibag city. The court dismissed claims of illness, noting medical reports did not mandate presence in Alibag and citing a prior rejection of a similar plea.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for relaxation of the bail condition was rejected and the application dismissed.

Hidaittulla @ Tulla Gaffoor Sayyed and Ors. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

.abs

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2008

¶5

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of :
 coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders
 or directions and Registrar Orders:

¶6

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

 Mr.G. Parkar i/b Mr.M.M. Parkar for the
 applicant.

¶8

 Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 1. By this application, the applicant
 prays for relaxation of condition imposed
 by this Court by its order dated 3rd May
 2007 on the applicant while granting bail.

¶11

 2. By an order dated 3rd May 2007,
 this Court granted bail to the applicants
 but put a condition that the applicant

¶12

 shall not enter Alibag city till further
 orders except for the purpose of attending
 the trial court. Learned counsel for the
 applicant submits that one of the
 applicants, viz. applicant no.1, is ill
 and invites my attention to Exhibit-B.
 Exhibit-B does not show that the applicant

¶13

 - 2 -

¶14

 suffers of a disease which requires his

¶15

 presence in Alibag. Medical report shows
 appearance of a "calculus" in the right
 kidney which means that the applicant may
 have a kidney stone. There is no material
 placed on record that the treatment for
 kidney stone or any other alleged ailment
 cannot be taken outside Alibag.

¶16

 3. It is pertinent to note that the
 applicant had previously applied for
 modification of the condition of not
 entering the Alibag city limits. By order
 dated 10th October 2007, this Court
 rejected the said application observing

¶17

 that witnesses had turned hostile.
 Precisely for this reason, condition
 appears to have been imposed that the
 applicant should not enter the city limits
 of Alibag. I see no reason to take a view
 different than the view taken by this
 Court vide order dated 10th October 2007
 rejecting the prayer for relaxation of
 condition. Application is accordingly
 rejected.

¶18

 (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Hidaittulla @ Tulla Gaffoor Sayyed and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hidaittulla @ Tulla Gaffoor Sayyed and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Bhimrao Dhope Vs Rekha Ashok Mane and Anr.

Natha Bhau Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang Laxman Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Motiram Zole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaipal Parshuram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Shaligram Tayed Vs the State of Maharashtra