Partly allowed

Nana Shankar Harkal and Ors. v. State of Mah

Bombay HC26 Nov 2009APPLN/3963/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench at Aurangabad allowed a Criminal Application partly. The court relaxed a prohibitory order for three family members to enter village Jategaon, pending investigation completion, while maintaining the ban for the accused applicant who is a Police Constable. Applicants directed not to create terror or law and order problems.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.2 of the prohibitory order dated 16.09.2009 relaxed for Sainath, Amol, and Ratnamala Harkal to enter village Jategaon; ban retained for Nana Shankar Harkal.

Nana Shankar Harkal and Ors. Vs State of Mah — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3963 OF 2009
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3113 OF 2009.

¶4

1)Nana Shankar Harkal
and others. - APPLICANTS
(ORIG.PETITIONERS)

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT

¶7

*****

¶8

Mr.PB Kakade, Advocate for Applicants;
Mrs.AV Gondhalekar,APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶10

DATE : 26^th November, 2009.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1)Heard Mr. Kakade, learned Counsel for

¶13

the applicants and Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned APP
for the State.

¶14

2)The learned APP has tendered report
dated 26.11.2009 from the Investigating Officer
of Crime No.I-86/2009 from Phulambri Police
Station.

¶15

¶16

3)The accused/applicants are family

¶17

members. Accused no.1 – Nana s/o Shankar Harkal
is Police Constable while Sainath and Amol are
his sons and Ratnamala is his wife. It is
canvassed, due to prohibitory orders dated 16th
September, 2009, inhibiting visiting village
Jategaon has caused immense loss due to non
following agricultural pursuits.

¶18

4)Since after the order dated 16th
September, 2009, the State has not noticed any
untoward incident against the accused/applicants,
nor they have committed any breach of the terms
and as learned APP has informed, investigation is
complete, charge sheet is to be filed within few
days, it will not be out of place to allow the
applicants – Sainath s/o Nana Harkal; Amol s/o
Nana Harkal; and Ratnamala w/o Nana Harkal to
enter village Jategaon. However, such permission
cannot be given to applicant no.1 – Nana s/o
Shankar Harkal. Hence, order.

¶19

5)The Criminal Application is partly
allowed. The condition No.2 in the order dated
16thSeptember, 2009 passed in Criminal
Application No. 3113 of 2009 is relaxed to the
extent of applicants - Sainath s/o Nana Harkal;
Amol s/o Nana Harkal; and Ratnamala w/o Nana
Harkal in Crime No.I-86/2009. Needless to add,

¶20

¶21

the accused/applicants shall not create any
terror in the locality and shall not invite any
problem of law and order.

¶22

6)Criminal Application No.3963/2009 is

¶23

allowed in aforesaid terms.

¶24

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶25

bdv/cran3963.09

Nana Shankar Harkal and Ors. v. State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nana Shankar Harkal and Ors. v. State of Mah

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

Sandeep Namdeo Bade Vs Sanjeevani Sandeep Bade

Shaikh Feroz Shaikh Akbar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parmeshwar Vishvanath Nalage and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M.S.E.B.Thr.Executive Engineer Bhusawal Vs Jairam Devram Pawar and Anr.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Namdeo Vithoba Jadhav

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Kondiba Bidwe and Ors.