Dismissed

Frank Henry Morris v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jun 2011BA/465/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected bail application of foreign national Frank Henry Morris held since August 2010. Court noted unclear investigation but trial yet to commence. Court ordered expedited trial completion within two months. Liberty granted for fresh bail application if trial delayed.

What did the court decide?

Trial to be completed within two months; liberty granted to apply for fresh bail if trial not over within stipulated period.

Frank Henry Morris Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

BA-465-11.sxw

Dixit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.465 OF 2011

¶6

Frank Henry Morris	...	Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
Thru' Vasai Police Station	...	Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ashish Bardaskar for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent. The I.O. is present.

¶8

CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATED :- 23RD JUNE, 2011.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

The Investigating Officer is present. I have glanced through the case papers. The Applicant is in custody since 4th August, 2010. Though the Charge Sheet has been filed long back, I am informed that the trial has not commenced. The Investigating Officer is unable to state whether charge has been framed and, if so, on which date.

¶13

The substance of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the Applicant is basically that the investigation that has been carried out has left so many aspects of the matter unclear. While there is substance in this contention, the fact remains that the Applicant appears to have come to the appointed place for

BA-465-11.sxw

Dixit

collecting the money. This would, prima facie, indicate that the Applicant had some role to play in the alleged offence, though the possibility of some others having a greater role in the matter cannot be overruled. It also appears that some further investigation is claimed to have been carried out, but the Applicant is not informed about the result of such further investigation. No additional Charge Sheet has been filed.

¶18

The Applicant is a Foreign National and is in prison since last more than ten months. Since his prima facie involvement in the alleged offences is disclosed and since it appears possible to hold the trial expeditiously, I am not inclined to release him on bail at this stage. However, the trial should be ordered to be expedited and the case of the Applicant should be considered favourably for bail, if the trial is not over within the stipulated time.

¶19

5. The Bail Application is rejected.

¶20

However, the learned Magistrate is directed to hold the trial expeditiously and complete the same within a period of two months from today, in any case.

¶21

The Investigating Officer shall inform the learned Magistrate in writing regarding this order.

¶22

Liberty to the Applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within the stipulated period.

¶23

[ A.M. THIPSAY, J.]

Frank Henry Morris v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Frank Henry Morris 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthukrishna Balakrishna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Moin Sohail Sayed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anwar Abdul Reheman Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Neha Varun Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dawood Gaffar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafique Ahmed Haji Mohd @ Rafique Hindustanwala Vs the State of Maharashtra