Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Rai v. S.M. Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2011APPA/337/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's application to modify bail conditions in an N.D.P.S. case. The court directed the applicant to attend the N.C.B. at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, once a month, noting his residency there and the fact that a co-accused received similar relief.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the applicant to attend the N.C.B. Office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, once a month instead of Mumbai.

Dinesh Kumar Rai Vs S.M. Patil and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2011)

APPA 337.11.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2009

Dinesh Kumar Rai.

... Applicant.

V/s.

Mr. S.M. Patil & Anr.

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Ayaz Khan for the Applicant. None for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATED : 26^th APRIL 2011.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. This is the application for modification of the bail order granted in favour of the Applicant during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.964 of 2009.

¶15

Present Applicant and his brother both convicted accused in N.D.P.S. case preferred two separate Appeals. Present Applicant filed Appeal No. 964 of 2009 whereas his brother Rajeev Kumar Rai filed Appeal No. 965 of 2009.

¶16

¶17

APPA 337.11.sxw

¶18

Reportedly, similar conditions of bail were imposed on both these accused persons when bail was granted to them vide order dated 30^th April 2010 by Hon'ble bench (V.M. Kanade, J.). So far as brother of the present applicant is concerned, he preferred an application bearing No.1572 of 2010 in his Appeal No. 965 of 2009 asking for modification of the condition of bail inasmuch as allowing him to attend N.C.B. Office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh once in a month instead of attendance at the N.C.B. Office at Mumbai. Said application was decided by the Hon'ble bench (R.C. Chavan, J.) vide order dated 18^th February 2011 and prayer was granted. Similar prayer is made by the present Applicant by present application which is under consideration. Reportedly, N.C.B. was served in the month of March 2011. However, none present. Apparently, both the accused persons involved in the same offence and convicted in the same case are to attend the N.C.B. Office during the pendency of their respective Appeals. As the relief was granted in favour of other coaccused Rajeev Rai allowing him to attend the N.C.B. Office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, similar relief can be granted in the present application though there is no opportunity to hear the learned Counsel for the N.C.B.

¶19

In the first sitting, matter was earlier called out however, none remain present. In the Second sitting also, none for N.C.B. As such, matter is taken up for passing orders. Present application is allowed. Liberty is given to the

¶20

¶21

APPA 337.11.sxw

¶22

present Applicant to attend N.C.B. Office at Laknow, Uttar Pradesh once in a month instead of attending the N.C.B. Office at Mumbai, mainly considering that the present Applicant is permanent resident of Brahmasthan, District Mauj, Uttar Pradesh. Office to give specific directions to the N.C.B. Mumbai regarding passing of the said order so that necessary arrangement can be made by N.C.B., Mumbai for marking the attendance of accused at N.C.B. Office at Luknow, Uttar Pradesh as per the directions. With these directions, present application is disposed of.

¶23

(A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Dinesh Kumar Rai v. S.M. Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Rai v. S.M. Patil 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

Sajid Ali Hasani Ali Zaveri and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Gangadas Panchmatia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Raghunath Patil Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Rohitkumar Shriparameshwar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Agnes Ruddy Odhoch Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ajay Ramkumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.