Allowed

Prakash Vithu Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Aug 2011ABA/648/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined an anticipatory bail application in a private complaint case involving allegations of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal intimidation. The applicants submitted that the dispute was settled amicably. The judge upheld the interim order.

What did the court decide?

The ad interim anticipatory bail application granted on 28.7.2011 is hereby made absolute and the application is disposed of.

Prakash Vithu Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2011)

648aba

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRI.ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.648/2011

¶6

1. Prakash Vithu Patil & ors .. Applicants

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Prashant Patil i.b Mr. K.S.Patil for
Applicants

¶9

Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa APP for State

¶10

Mr.Ranjeet Patil for Complainant

¶11

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J
DATE:20th August 2011

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants.

¶14

The Applicants seek anticipatory bail in crime

¶15

No.94 of 2011 under sections 387, 341, 504, 5-06
(2) read with section 34 IPC registered with
Taloja police station at Navi Mumbai. An
offence was registered on a report of one Shoaib
Mohammed Amin Patel. As per FIR lodged by him
some dispute had occured between the Complainant
and accused persons as the accused persons

¶16

648aba

¶17

¶18

claimed that they were to take a contract of
scrap of Asai Glass Private Ltd and they asked
the Complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- if he wanted
the contract. After that the accused persons
allegedly stopped the dumper of the complainant
and assaulted and abused his brother as well as
the driver.

¶19

2. According to the Applicants, there was a

¶20

dispute only about taking the contract and the
matter has been amicably settled between the
parties. To that effect an affidavit was also
filed by the complainant Shoiab Mohammed Patel
before the sessions court. Mr.Ranjeet Patil

¶21

Advocate is present with the Complainant and he
also confirms that the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties and now there is no
dispute. He also confirms that the complainant

¶22

had filed a complaint before the sessions Court.

¶23

Taking into consideration these facts on
28.7.2011 this court had granted ad interim
anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

¶24

¶25

648aba

¶26

3.In view of the above, ad interim

¶27

anticipatory application granted on 28.7.2011 is
hereby made absolute. Application stands
disposed of.

¶28

J.H.BHATIA, J

Prakash Vithu Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Vithu Patil 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

Mahesh Suresh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Anandrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Laxman Rambhau Shelage

Amruta Amit Umavane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Pandharinath Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shailendra Omkarnath Agarwal