Anticipatory bail application rejected as maintainability was doubted since apprehended offences were bailable under CrPC, making Section 438 inapplicable.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Application No. 4308 of 2011 (Savitabai Dattatraya Uplenchwar v. The State)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for the respondent / State
PER COURT :
22nd Nov. 11 ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the requirements of Section 438 CrPC are fulfilled when the offences apprehended are already bailable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savitabai Dattatraya Uplenchwar
The State
R.Y. GANOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
