Partly allowed

Atul Arjunrao Gofane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2010APPLN/3511/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad considered a request for modification of an anticipatory bail order. The court confirmed an order granting bail but imposed conditions requiring the applicants to cooperate with the investigation and appear at police stations, balancing the extension of their work scheme against allegations of default.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed ad-interim anticipatory bail order with conditions to appear at police station on Sundays and cooperate with investigation; arrest stayed for now.

Atul Arjunrao Gofane and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3511 OF 2010

¶5

Atul s/o Arjunrao Gofane, R/o Bhotra, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad.

¶6

Sow. Shivganga Sanjay Jadhav, R/o as above. APPLICANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. A.S. More, advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.P. More, APP for the respondents.

¶11

[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶12

[DATE : 29th November, 2010]

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The learned advocate for the applicants submits that

¶16

the Scheme was previously extended till end of September, 2010

¶17

and now, there is further extension granted to the Scheme upto 31st December, 2010. He further submits that the work could be completed within the given extended period and the applicants cannot be presumed to have committed defaults.

¶18

( 2 )

¶19

The learned A.P.P., however, submits that he has not

¶20

been provided with the necessary reports and other investigation papers has sought by him from the Investigating Officer. It appears that since the Scheme itself is extended till December, 2010, the registration of the FIR against the applicant is, therefore, unwarranted for the present. If they will not carry out the work by end of December, 2010, then the necessary steps may be taken by the Investigating Officer for seeking their arrest and such application can be filed for the purpose of revocation of the anticipatory bail order. In the present context, however, the arrest of the applicants may humiliate them and is not warranted by the circumstances only because FIR Is registered against them wherein there is allegation that they obstructed the execution of the work of the Scheme and committed certain defalcation of the amount.

¶21

In view of foregoing reasons, the ad-interim order dated 1st September, 2010 is confirmed with further modification in the order that the applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and shall actively cooperate with the Investigating

¶22

Officer. They shall submit the record and explanation as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer during the course

¶23

( 3 )

¶24

of investigation. They shall attend the concerned Police Station on four (4) consecutive Sundays hereafter. The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE

¶26

NPJ/criapln3511-10

Atul Arjunrao Gofane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Arjunrao Gofane and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Baburao Poul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Trimukh Narayan Dhokre Vs the State of Mah

Narayan Nagorao Vaidya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kakasaheb Mahadeo Shinde and Others Vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd.Kasim Mohd.Chhotuji Vs State of Maharashtra

Hari Budha Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Mah