Remanded

Sandip Murlidhar Lagu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Nov 2009WP/1657/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the lower courts rejection of the discharge application. The order was remitted to the Sessions Judge for reconsideration of the discharge application on its own merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order set aside; discharge application restored to Sessions Judge for fresh consideration.

Sandip Murlidhar Lagu and Anr. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1657 of 2008

¶4

Sandip Murlidhar Lagu & anr.

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶7

...Petitioner ...Respondents

¶8

Shri Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

¶10

DATED:- November 09, 2009.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard finally, by

¶14

consent. Ms. Mhatre waives notice for the State.

¶15

This Writ Petition in substance takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dated 7^th January, 2008 in Misc. Application No. 625/2007. The Petitioner-original accused no.1 applied for discharge by way of said application. The Court below has rejected the said

¶16

¶17

application for reasons recorded in the said order. The same can be discerned from Paragraph 10-13 of the impugned Judgment.

¶18

However, even on careful consideration of the discussion in the impugned Judgment, there is hardly any evidence referred to by the Lower Court which would indicate complicity of the Petitioner-accused no.1 in the commission of alleged offence. The discussion, however, revolves around the recovery of vehicle from possession of accused no.2. The fact that accused no. 2 is the friend of the Petitioner-accused no.1 by itself does not indicate the involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the offence. At this stage of the proceedings, even Learned APP in all fairness submits that the appropriate course is to relegate the parties before the trial Court for re-consideration of discharge application afresh on its own merits instead of considering the entire material for the first time before this Court. According to Learned APP, there is sufficient material to indicate the complicity of the Petitioner herein as well but that has not been specifically adverted to in the impugned Judgment.

¶19

In the circumstances, this Petition succeeds. The impugned Judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the application for discharge filed by the Petitioner being Misc. Application No. 625/2007 is restored to the file of the concerned

¶20

¶21

Sessions Judge to be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the Impugned Judgment or for that matter in the present order. All questions are left open. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Sandip Murlidhar Lagu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Murlidhar Lagu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Kamal Kumar Bhola

Shri Hastimal G. Chandan and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Shri Hastmal G. Chandan and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Lilabai Gafur Shaikh Vs Vijaysinh Vittalrao Dhumal and Ors.

Kunal Amarsing Salunke and Ors. Vs Anup Kumar Avasthi and Anr.

Sharifa D.Khatri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.