Dismissed

Kaveribai Santoshrao Bagal v. Madhavrao Sonaji Bagal and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2011APPLN/2322/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the applicant's application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to four respondents. The court held that filing an FIR against the applicant and an attempt to register an adoption deed did not constitute tampering with prosecution evidence sufficient to quash the bail order.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 1 to 4 is dismissed.

Kaveribai Santoshrao Bagal Vs Madhavrao… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Criapln2322-10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2322 OF 2010

¶5

Kaveribai wd/o Santoshrao Bagal
VERSUS

¶6

Madhavrao Sonaji Bagal & others

¶7

APPLICANT

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

.....

¶10

Mr. P.G. Gunale, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the respondent
Nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

.....

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2.By the present application, the applicant is
seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted
to the respondents No. 1 to 4, vide order dated 7th

¶15

November, 2009, passed by the learned Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Cri. M.A.
No. 203/2009.

¶16

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶17

the applicant at bar that at the time of granting

¶18

Criapln2322-10

¶19

(2)

¶20

anticipatory bail, a condition was put to the
respondents No. 1 to 4/accused not to tamper with the
prosecution evidence, however, FIR is filed against
the applicant by the respondents/accused. Further it
is submitted that she was cheated by the respondents/
accused by getting certain adoption deed registered.

¶21

4.Filing of the FIR would not amount to any
tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned
counsel for the applicant agrees that the applicant

¶22

can very well avail the remedies for quashing of the
FIR. Further, certain attempt to create any adoption
deed would not be a ground for cancellation of the
anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused.
In the circumstances, the application is dismissed.

¶23

NPJ/criapln2322-10

Kaveribai Santoshrao Bagal v. Madhavrao Sonaji Bagal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaveribai Santoshrao Bagal v. Madhavrao Sonaji Bagal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Shriniwas Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Khudabaksha Ismail Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Aijaz Shaikh Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashapaq Sayed Abdul Raheman and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Unmesh Shantanurao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

1. Shri Baban Rambhau Tope and Ors. Vs 1. Shri Mohan Rambhau Tope and Ors.