Disposed

Sau Usha W/O Vishnu Jadhao and Others v. the State of Maharshtra through Pso Mangrulpir

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012ABA/387/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, disposed of a criminal application regarding apprehension of arrest. The court observed the complainant's prior conviction for similar offenses and the lack of a reply from the State. Consequently, the interim order confirming caution was maintained, citing difficulty in believing the kidnapping story, and the application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application stood disposed of; interim order to attend police station whenever required was confirmed.

Sau Usha W/O Vishnu Jadhao and Others Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

08.10.aba.387.12

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 387 /2012

¶5

(Sau.Ushal w/o Vishnu Jadhao and others vs. 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

..................................................................................................................................................................... Shri Shrikant J. Khandalkar, Adv. for applicants Shri S.S.Doifode, APP for Respondent -State

¶8

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 8^th October, 2012.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The applicants are apprehending arrest in Crime No.92/2012 of Mangrulpir Police Station for the offences punishable u/ss. 363, 366 r/ws. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant in this case is one Shardabai Prakash Bobade who has filed an FIR alleging inter alia that her daughter by name Kajal, has been kidnapped by the son of the applicant nos.1 and 2 by name Rajesh. It is alleged that the applicant nos.1 and 2 who are parents of Rajesh and applicant no.3 who is the brother of Rajesh, have either abetted or the offence has been committed in furtherance of common intention of all.

¶11

The learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that the complainant herself is of a dubious

¶12

2/2

¶13

08.10.aba.387.12

¶14

character. It was brought to my notice that there was a case against her u/ss. 363 and 366 IPC. Copy of the FIR is produced before this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the complainant was convicted in the said offence.

¶15

In any event, in the present case, the respondent has not filed any reply. Going by the FIR, there is nothing against the applicants except the bare suspicion of complainant. The boy namely Rajesh and daughter of complainant-Kajal are missing. It is difficult to say that the applicants have either abetted or have shared intention of Rajesh. In fact, it appears to be difficult to believe the story of the complainant in respect of the alleged kidnapping itself. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶16

Interim order is confirmed. The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station whenever required by the Investigating Officer for investigation of this case. Application stands disposed of.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

sahare

Sau Usha W/O Vishnu Jadhao and Others v. the State of Maharshtra through Pso Mangrulpir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau Usha W/O Vishnu Jadhao and Others v. the State of Maharshtra through Pso Mangrulpir

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

Jayant Maruti Talmale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Santosh S/O Hariprasad Zunzunwala Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Akot

Sau. Smita W/O Rajendra Tayde Vs Rajendra S/O Kisan Tayde

Mr Ashok Govindra Umale Vs Mr Vijay Bhaskar Kelkar

Husna Afroz W/O Rashid Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ramdaspeth, Akola

Rajeshwar S/O Govind Khangar Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.