Application for anticipatory bail in a case involving unauthorized sand collection and environmental violations was rejected. The court found prima facie evidence of theft and environmental breach insufficient grounds for bail.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant to apply for bail if arrested.
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
Cri.Appl.No.253 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2012
Gurvindarsing S/o.Kuldeepsing Tuteja, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Sindhi Colony, Aurangabad APPLICANT
VERSUS
and another RESPONDENTS
Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.
(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)
DATE : 09/02/2012
PER COURT :
2
Cri.Appl.No.253 of 2012
3
Cri.Appl.No.253 of 2012
go against the applicant. Therefore at this stage, it would be extremely difficult to accept the plead that the applicant is innocent or is not involved in the commission of offence of theft of sand and other offences.
khs/FEB.2012/cri.appl.253-12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail during pendency of investigations into charges of theft and environmental violations.
Whether the prima facie evidence of unauthorized sand collection and presence of applicant's truck at the spot negates innocence.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Gurvindarsing S/o.Kuldeepsing Tuteja
The State of Maharashtra
Unnamed
A.H.JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
