High Court Nagpur Bench dismissed a Criminal Application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. The applicant alleged the bail recipient committed theft, but the Court found no material, as no police report was filed.
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.
1/2
28.09.apl.24.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 24/ 2012
(Harishchandra Narayanrao Kharkar vs. State of Maharashtra and another)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. S. J Khandalkar, Adv. for applicant Mrs. S.S. Jachak, APP for Respondent no.1-State Mr. Mahesh Rai, Adv.for Res.no. 2
CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 28th September, 2012.
Heard.
The respondent no.2 has been granted bail u/s. 438 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.2.2012 passed in ABA No. 37/2012.
The applicant is holding some quantity of bricks on behalf of the Executive Magistrate under document called “ Suprutnama” . The bricks originally belonged to respondent no.2. They were seized by the Revenue authorities because the respond4nt no.2 had been manufacturing bricks despite expiry of the license for manufacturing of bricks. As stated earlier, the bricks, after seizure by the Revenue authorities, were kept in safe custody of the applicant. The applicant alleged that the respondent no.2 had committed theft. The Revenue authorities, therefore, lodged a complaint against the respondent no.2 for allegedly committing theft of bricks
2/2
28.09.apl.24.12
from the quantity of bricks given to the applicant under Suprutnama. The respondent no.2, therefore, approached this Court for grant of relief u/s 438. The relief was granted in ABA No. 37/2012.
The applicant has moved this Court by present Application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by order in ABA No.37/2012. Mr. S.J.Khandalkar, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent no.2 has again indulged into theft of bricks in the custody of the applicant.
There is no material at all in the Application to show as to how the allegations made by the applicant could be substantiated. No police report has been lodged in respect of the alleged subsequent theft. The Application being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
sahare
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent should be allowed given the lack of evidence regarding alleged subsequent theft.
Harishchandra Narayanrao Kharkar
State of Maharashtra
M.L. Tahaliyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court