On behalf of the State, Counsel argued no error in the Additional Sessions Judge's disposition of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC where no FIR was registered but police consented to a 72-hour notice. The Application was dismissed.
Criminal Application No. 56 of 2012 dismissed. Order dated 21st November 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APL 56.12.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2012
Mr. Purshottam B. Tahilramani.
... Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
... Respondents.
None for the Applicant. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, APP for the State.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 21st NOVEMBER 2012.
P.C. :-
Learned Counsel for the Applicant called absent.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
2 APL 56.12.sxw
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application can be disposed of correctly when no FIR was registered but police agreed to give 72 hours notice if action is to be taken.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Purshottam B. Tahilramani
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
