Allowed

Subhash Ramrao Rathod and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Mar 2011APPLN/475/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad reconsidered a bail application. The court declined custodial interrogation, noting the dispute over land possession belongs to civil authorities. It converted interim protection into absolute bail with modified attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection made absolute with modified attendance condition to meet every Sunday between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Subhash Ramrao Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

CRAPL NO.475/2011

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

1. APPLN/475/2011 SUBHASH RAMRAO RATHOD AND [Criminal] ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or
Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s
or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders

¶8

Mr. S.S.Rathi, Adv., for the
applicants.

¶9

Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State.

¶10

Mr. S.R.Choukidar, Adv., for R.2.

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
 DATE:24/3/2011

¶13

1.Heard. Counsel for respondent
has filed power in the office and has
filed affidavit in reply. Copy
already received by Mr. Rathi.

¶14

2.Heard. From land Survey No.621
owned by the Government, situate at
Parbhani, certain area, around 20
gunthas, was allegedly allotted to
respondent no.2. The controversy
revolves to possession of said area
which is subject matter of RCS No.
4/2004 where the applicant has lost.
He has preferred an appeal before the
learned District Judge at Parbhani in
which status quo orders are issued.

¶15

¶16

CRAPL NO.475/2011

¶17

3.Though Mr. Choukidar, learned
Counsel for respondent, allottee of
20 gunthas of land has pointed out
irregularities on the part of the
applicant, however, this Court is not
called upon to investigate about
validity of the title or acquiring
the property from the Government by
misrepresentation. The appropriate
authorities, on being informed, would
have their own recourse.

¶18

4.For the present, in a matter
where complaint is lodged by
respondent no.2, seeking infraction
in respect of their possession or
demolition of a house, custodial
interrogation is not contemplated.
Whatever is the set of documents, it
is either subject matter of the
dispute in Civil Court or before the
competent authorities. Entry in
Schedule I, under Bombay Public
Trusts Act, in 2003 of respondent no.
2, is inconsequential for the
purposes of dealing with the
application in terms of Section 438
of Cr.P.C. The applicant no.1 is
a Government servant, Nos. 2 and 3

¶19

¶20

CRAPL NO.475/2011

¶21

are the employees – Headmaster of the
school conducted by applicant no.1
while others are teacher or Sub Staff
in the said institution. Least
chancesoftheseapplicants
absconding or misusing the bail.

¶22

Consequently,theinterim

¶23

protection dt.7th Feb.,2011 is made
absolute. The attendance condition
is modified, the accused/applicant to
attend on every Sunday between 3 p.m.
to 6 p.m. till 31st July, 2011. The
applicants shall ensure to furnish
requisite documents, apart from the
one produced in the civil litigation,
if so commanded by the investigator.

¶24

Application allowed.

¶25

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
 JUDGE

¶26

...

¶27

AGP/475-11crapl

Subhash Ramrao Rathod and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Ramrao Rathod and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Sk Bashir Sk Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxmibai Narayan Gutte Vs the State of Mah

Shankar Nagoji Chinchole Vs the State of Mah

Prashant Shyamrao Kalyani and Anr. Vs the State of Mah, Thr. Nanded Rural P.S.

Ajay Vishnu Mahajan Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shivraj Bapu Ghogare Vs the State of Mah