Allowed

Shivaji Raghunath Nagargoje v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC28 Jan 2011APPLN/100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application for bail. The applicant, charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, had initially misled the court about events involving a vehicle accident. He was granted bail on the condition that he furnish a personal bond and surety along with attending investigations.

What did the court decide?

Release of the accused on furnishing a P.R. bond and surety of Rs. 25,000/- and complying with investigation and court attendance conditions.

Shivaji Raghunath Nagargoje Vs the State of Mah — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Application No.100/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2011

¶5

Shivaji s/o Raghunath Nagargoje ... APPLICANT VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT

¶7

Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent

¶8

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶9

DATE : 28th January, 2011

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard. The accused/ applicant, in custody from 13.12.2010 in Crime No.202/2009, of Parli Rural Police Station, District Beed, for an offence under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks to be released on bail.

¶12

The applicant was not driver of the vehicle, but it was Nagnath, who drove the vehicle, crushed three persons who were with the accused/ applicant Shivaji. The first statement of the accused/ applicant misled the case. In the supplementary statement dated 20.12.2009, he narrated the correct events how the principal

¶13

¶14

Criminal Application No.100/2011

¶15

accused Nagnath carried the jeep and crushed the associates of the accused/ applicant. The present accused/ applicant did not inform the events in tune as has happened and hence, suffers prosecution in terms of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Supplementary charge sheet is filed on 20.12.2010. There is nothing that the accused/ applicant has threatened any of the witness or created such a situation, to cause disappearance of the evidence. Accused/ applicant holds immovable property, even if he is working as a Driver at Mumbai. Hence the order:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The accused/ applicant Shivaji s/o Raghunath Nagargoje be released on his furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The accused/applicant, after his release, shall attend the investigator on every Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. up to 31st May 2011. The accused/ applicant shall not influence the witnesses and also scrupulously attend the Court proceedings. Application allowed.

¶18

K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE

¶19

fmp/cri100.11

Shivaji Raghunath Nagargoje v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Raghunath Nagargoje v. the State of Mah

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

Kishan Venkatrao Birajdar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kailash Narayan Shukla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Audhut Adelu Mutnewad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Janardhan Chandu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Rambhau Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Uttamrao Jadhav Vs the State of Mahrashtra