The high court rejected the applicant's criminal application seeking revision against the trial court's order granting bail to respondents. The court found no case for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office
memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court’sCourt’s or Judge’s orders.
orders or directions
and Registrar’s orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/byM/s.Khandeparkar &
Associates for the Applicant.
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
DATE : 11th August 2008.
P.C.:
.Heard advocate for the applicant. By this
application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant has
challenged an order dated 12th April 2005 passed by
the trial Court by which the 2nd and 3rd
respondents have been ordered to be enlarged on
bail.
2.It is not the case of the applicant that
the concerned respondents have not complied with
the conditions imposed while granting bail or that
they have misused the facility granted under the
order of bail.
3.Considering the allegations in the F.I.R
lodged at the instance of the petitioners and
considering the fact that the order has been passed
in April 2005, no case is made out for
interference. Application is rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the trial court's order enlarging respondents on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.S.Khandeparkar
State
A.S.OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court