Dismissed

Ganesh Mohansing Thakur v. the State of Maharshtra, Represented through Pso Wadgaon Road, T.D. Yavatmal

Bombay HC11 Oct 2012ABA/378/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that custody is required for identification by the complainant, despite the applicant's name not appearing in the FIR and an alleged delay in recording statements implicate the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; custody of the applicant may be required for identification. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Ganesh Mohansing Thakur Vs the State of Maharshtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

11.10.aba.378.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 378 /2012

¶5

(Ganesh Mohansing Thakur vs. The State of Maharashtra)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 11^th October, 2012.

¶8

Heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. D.B.Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State.

¶9

Perused the First Information Report. The name of the applicant is not in the FIR. The name of the applicant appears in one of the statements which is recorded after about 21 days of the incident. It is submitted by Mr. Sambre that inordinate delay in recording the statement of the said witness gives clear indication that the witness has been manipulated by the prosecution to implicate the applicant in a false case.

¶10

The offence for which the applicant is apprehending his arrest is punishable u/s 302 r/ws. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, the name of the applicant does not appear in the FIR. However, there is mention of four unknown persons and the complainant has stated that he would be able to identify the said four persons. In the

¶11

2/2

¶12

11.10.aba.378.12

¶13

circumstances, it is not possible to grant relief u/s 438 Cr.P.C. The custody of the applicant may be required even for identification by the complainant who has named two persons in the FIR and has stated that there were another four persons who can be identified by him. The Application is, therefore, rejected. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

JUDGE

¶15

sahare

Ganesh Mohansing Thakur v. the State of Maharshtra, Represented through Pso Wadgaon Road, T.D. Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Mohansing Thakur v. the State of Maharshtra, Represented through Pso Wadgaon Road, T.D. Yavatmal

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

Atique Mohammad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso , Wadgaon Road Ps Yavatmal

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso. Chikhli Thr. President Prakash N Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Jagdish @ Jagya Wasudeo Lanjewar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Commissioner of Police and Others

Subhash Ganpatrao Ghavghave Vs Mamta Co-Operative Society, Nagpur Thr. Anand C Trivedi and Others

Rajesh Narayandas Lohana Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Wadgaon Road, Distt Yavatmal

Dhiraj S/O Milindrao Thool and Anr. Vs Sau. Swati W/O Dhiraj Thool