Allowed

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jan 2012ABA/30/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil, who alleged he entered into a property purchase agreement at the behest of his abducted uncle but was not interested in the transaction himself.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a bond of 25,000/- and conditions to report to police, avail interrogation, not induce witnesses, and not leave India without permission.

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1ABA 30-12.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2012

¶5

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil

¶6

.Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶9

Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate, for the Applicant
Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for the Respondent -
State

¶10

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:13TH JANUARY, 2012

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶13

respective parties.

¶14

2.Affidavit is taken on record. This is

¶15

an application for anticipatory bail by a

¶16

nephew, who apprehends arrest in connection with

¶17

C.R.No.283 of 2011 for the offences punishable

¶18

under Sections 129-B, 364A, 341, 386, 347, 323,
504 of the Indian Penal Code registered with
Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur and who is

¶19

2ABA 30-12.odt

¶20

alleged to have agreed to purchase property of

¶21

the uncle, who had been abducted by one Moolya

¶22

Zambre, who wanted to recover 4,50,000/- from`

¶23

the said uncle's son i. e. complainant Shahaji's

¶24

son. The applicant has stated on oath that he
was not interested in purchasing the property of
the uncle and only in order to help his uncle he

¶25

entered into an agreement and paid 4,00,000/-. In view of this, applicant's being in custody for the purpose of further investigation may not be necessary. Application is, therefore,`

¶26

allowed. In the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in`

¶27

the aggregate sum of 25,000/- on the following conditions.`

¶28

(i)The applicant shall report at the
Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur on 20th January,
2012 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when
required by the investigating officer.

¶29

(ii)The applicant shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required.

¶30

¶31

ABA 30-12.odt

¶32

(iii)The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.

¶33

(iv)The applicant shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the trial
Court.

¶34

.The order will remain in force till the
trial is over with the only stipulation that if
charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh
bonds before the trial Court in view of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC)
312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of
Maharashtra And Ors.).

¶35

3.Criminal Application is disposed of.

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram Yashwant Mane Vs Prakash H. Patil and Ors.

Abhijit Mahavir Mahajan Vs Rajesh Prakash Kashikar and Anr.

Rajaram Yashwant Mane Vs Prakash H. Patil and Ors.

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. Vs St Ate of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.