Dismissed

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Nisar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2011APPLN/28/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. The court rejected the claim that the applicant had no role in the carom club incident, noting evidence showed the applicant knew the complainant and engaged in caste-based abuse. Consequently, the court found no case to exercise its powers to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

The application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected; anticipatory bail denied.

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Nisar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

CRI.APPLN.NO.28/2011

¶3

1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.28/2011 (Shaikh Babu s/o Shaikh Nisar Vs. Teh State of Mah. and Anr.)

¶6

Office notes, office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶8

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶9

Mr.HF Pawar, Adv. for applicant;

¶10

Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.

¶13

DATE :11th January, 2011.

¶14

1) Heard.

¶15

2) In Crime No.340/2009, registered at
Bhagyanagar Police station, Nanded, the
applicant/accused seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶16

3) The principal contention of learned
Counsel for the applicant/accused is,
the accused has no role in playing carom
club activities as the valid license is
in the name of somebody else, supported
by the documents. There are no reasons
for the applicant/accused to clamp fists
against the complainant.

¶17

4) Therecordillustrate,the
applicant/accused is in know of the
complainant and in order to teach a
lesson to the complainant, the events
dated 5th December, 2009 have taken
place. Specific role is pointed to the

¶18

¶19

CRI.APPLN.NO.28/2011

¶20

applicant/accused as to how they have
dealt with the complainant in spite of
knowing the caste of the complaint,
abuses were hurled in the name of his
caste.

¶21

5) No case to exercise powers under section
438 of Cr.P.C., the application is
rejected.

¶22

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶23

bdv/

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Nisar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Babu Shaikh Nisar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Satish Pandharinath Borde Vs Vanita Satish Borde

Venkateshcharya Guru Laxmanacharya Alias Venkateshacharya Dubey Dalsingar Dubey and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Shri P K Anna Patil Janata Sahakari Bank Limited Nandurbar through Its Liquidator Vs Bansi Onkar Patil

Vishwanath Madhavrao Rakshale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Navnath Bajirao Mohite and Ors. Vs Rohidas Raybhan Mohite and Anr.

Mahadeo Arjun Gawad Vs the Stte of Maharashtra and Ors.