Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravikiran v Ingavale

Bombay HC23 Mar 2011BA/20/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected two applications for cancelling bail. The court held that moving out of jurisdiction after a minor detour did not breach conditions, canvassing on a permitted day was not a lapse, and the respondent promised to attend future trials and allow witnesses to be examined in his absence.

What did the court decide?

Applications for cancellation of bail by the State and the first informant were rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravikiran… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

BAG-20.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2011

¶4

The State of Maharashtra.... Applicant
Vs.

¶5

Ravikiran V. Ingavale.... Respondent

¶6

Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the Applicant.
S/Shri S.R. Borulkar with Manoj Patil
for the Respondent.

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2011 IN

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2009

¶10

Sanjay Bajirao Jagtap.... Applicant
Vs.
Ravikiran V. Ingavale
& Anr..... Respondents

¶11

Shri Prashant Naik for the Applicant.
S/Shri S.R. Borulkar with Manoj Patil
for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for Respondent
No.2.

¶13

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶14

DATED: MARCH 23, 2011

¶15

P.C:

¶16

1.These are two applications for
cancellation of bail by the State and the first
informant. The allegation is that the

¶17

2 BAG-20.11

¶18

respondent was admitted to bail putting
stringent conditions since he was an
influential person and a leader. It is alleged
that the respondent was supposed to leave the
jurisdiction of Kolhapur District after being
bailed out. But after he was released from the
Kolhapur Prison, he went in a procession to his
house and then left Kolhapur District after
meeting his family members. Now, though this is
deprecable, it cannot be called strictly a
breach of conditions imposed on the respondent
since the respondent had not stayed at Kolhapur
after being released from the prison. Now from
the prison he was bound to move out of Kolhapur
by road and if he took a detour to meet his
family on the way, that cannot be a matter of
concern, though going in a procession was
definitely uncalled for.

¶19

2.The next allegation against the
respondent is that respondent was again
permitted by the order of this Court dated
4-10-2010 to enter the limits of Kolhapur City
for filing nomination for election to the
Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on 7-10-2010 and
24-10-2010 for the purpose of canvassing as
also on 31-10-2010 for casting his vote. The
allegation is that on 7-10-2010 itself when the

¶20

3 BAG-20.11

¶21

respondent came in for filing his nomination,
he had meetings with several persons. Now since
he was permitted to enter Kolhapur and also for
one more day for canvassing, if he did canvass
on 7-10-2010 itself by meeting some persons, it
cannot be a lapse warranting cancellation of
bail. It is reported that the respondent has
been elected to the Municipal Corporation as a
result of the election held.

¶22

3.The last allegation of the learned
counsel for the first informant is, however,
serious. It is that after being bailed out, the
respondent is not attending the trial Court and
dragging his feet. My attention has been drawn
to the applications for adjournments or
exemption filed by the respondent. If the
respondent seeks any adjournment at the trial
by remaining absent, or does not allow the
trial to proceed even in his absence by
specifically stating to the Court that his
identification would not be questioned, the
bail granted to the respondent would have to be
cancelled to ensure that he remains present at
the trial. The learned counsel for the
respondent states that he would ensure that the
respondent attends the trial on all the days on
which the trial is fixed and if for some reason

¶23

4 BAG-20.11

¶24

the respondent is not able to attend the Court,
the trial will not be held up and the witnesses
would be examined in the absence of the
respondent without questioning the identity of
the witnesses. The applications are, therefore,
rejected.

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravikiran v Ingavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Ravikiran v Ingavale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravinji Anandji Jajal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Revanayya Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Gani Anisurraheman Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Bajirao Jagtap Vs Ravikiran v. Ingavale and Anr.

Annusing Channusing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Mahadu Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra