Single judge dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a criminal conspiracy case involving property dispute and assault. The court found lack of documentary proof of possession and necessity for custodial interrogation.
Criminal Application stands dismissed; ad interim relief granted on 13-5-2011 is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Application No. 2121 of 2011
versus
(2)
Mr. D.S. Bharuka, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1.
Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2011
COURT'S ORDER :
(3)
an application seeking anticipatory bail, and ad interim protection was granted therein, but subsequently, the said application came to be rejected on 3rd May 2011. Thereafter, applicants approached this Court for anticipatory bail and ad interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants during Vacation on 13th May 2011, and the same is effective till today.
(4)
applicants, that they are in possession and they have not vacated the premises in question. To support the said contention, learned Adv. Mr. D.S. Bharuka, for the applicants, submitted that the applicants have deposited even tax of the said premises and applicants have been paying telephone bill in respect of the telephone in the said premises.
(5)
MH-20/AA-2121, belongs to some other Indica vehicle pertains to Tours & Travels and said registration number was falsely used by the applicants at the time of commission of the offence.
( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE
bgp/ka2121
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application should be allowed or dismissed.
Whether custodial interrogation of applicants is necessary for investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh s/o. Manohar Lad
Laxmibai Mangilal Chauhan
Ankush s/o. Rambhau Mandlik
The State of Maharashtra
Prafulla s/o. Mulchand Bramhecha
Shrihari P. Davare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
