High Court Bench at Aurangabad rejected a criminal application seeking pre-arrest protection. The court held that admitting to evading prosecution negates merit for continued protection and vacated interim order.
Criminal application rejected and interim protection vacated.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2095 OF 2009
Dilip s/o Vitthal Dahatonde
..Applicant.
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra and anr.
...Respondent
Shri S.V. Gangapurvala, Adv for the applicant. Shri P.M. Shinde, APP for Respondent State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009.
PER COURT :-
2- The cross complaint may be a ground but the fact remain, the First Information Report discloses involvement of the accused Dilip with specific role. That apart, plea of the alibi as projected need not be considered at the stage of prearrest. It is apparent, being armed with conditional order, the accused applicant has successfully evaded the prosecution. In this situation, I do not see any merit. Application is rejected.
3- Interim protection vacated.
( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. )
aaa/2095.09
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest protection should be granted when the applicant has evaded prosecution with an interim order.
Whether alibi plea can be considered at the stage of pre-arrest protection application.
Dilip s/o Vitthal Dahatonde
The State of Maharashtra
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
