Allowed

Hira Ankush Mangavde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Nov 2010APPLN/5044/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal magistrates' court allowed interim protection under Section 438 CrPC (implied) for applicants facing offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, directing them to move Sessions Court by a specific date and prohibiting misuse of order.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted; applicants directed to approach Sessions Court by November 18, 2010; no precipitative steps allowed.

Hira Ankush Mangavde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr.appln.5044.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Criminal Application No. 5044 of 2010

¶5

Mrs. Hira Ankush Mangavde & ors. ....Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

¶6

Ms. Vidhya A. Mangavde-applicant no. 5 in person present. Mrs. A.A. Mane-APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM:- P.D.KODE, J. (VACATION COURT)

¶8

DATED:- NOVEMBER 10, 2010.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By the present Application, the Applicants had prayed for interim protection in connection with CR No. 45/2010 registered with Ambi Police Station for offence under Section 363, 366 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶11

The Applicant No. 5 - Advocate appearing in person for herself and for other Applicants has submitted that the Applicants had approached Bench at Aurangabad only for Transit Bail and same Application was withdrawn in view of the Applicants being the residents of Bombay i.e. for approaching this Court.

¶12

cr.appln.5044.10

¶13

¶14

After considering the matters in First Information Report which is annexed with the Application, it is difficult to perceive that the same was lodged by an eye witness for acts/events described therein. In view of the same, the query was made to Learned APP to point out the material, if any so far collected against the Applicants. The Learned APP had shown inability to furnish the information in view of the officer being not present. The Applicant No. 5 has stated that Applicants would be moving the Court of Sessions at Usmanabad on or before 18^th November, 2010 for appropriate relief. Having regard to the same and having regard to the matter stated in the First Information Report the limited relief sought deserves to be granted.

¶15

The Applicants as informed to approach the Sessions Court at District Usmanabad on or before 18^th November, 2010. No precipitative steps be taken till then. The Applicants shall not misuse the order for fleeing away of for tempering prosecution evidence or for any other oblique purpose.

¶16

Application stands disposed of.

Hira Ankush Mangavde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hira Ankush Mangavde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Krishna Sawalaram Tamhankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Bapuso Magdum Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Avinash Vasant Ganore Vs Vaju Nanjibhai Parmar and Anr.

Jaiprakash Motilal Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Bapu Salve @ Narsale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta Shekappa Jadhav Vs the Superitendent of Prisons and Anr.