Disposed

Sunil Dattatray Ubale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012APPLN/358/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two criminal anticipatory bail applications. Confirming earlier interim orders, the judge directed applicants to attend the police station for investigation and granted discharge from custody while a charge sheet was pending.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed interim anticipatory bail orders; directed applicants to appear at police station for investigation; discharged from custody pending charge sheet.

Sunil Dattatray Ubale Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cran358.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2012

¶5

Sunil S/o Dattatray Ubale ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 743 OF 2012

¶8

Shriniwas S/o Devanna Chukabotale ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the applicants Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for respondents

¶10

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 1ST MARCH, 2012

¶11

ORAL ORDER :-

¶12

1 Heard Mr. Salunke, the learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Lodhe, the learned APP for the respondent/State.

¶13

The applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail by order

¶14

cran358.12

¶15

-2-

¶16

dated 24.1.2012 and this interim order was further extended by orders dated 13.2.2012 and 23.2.2012. On 23.2.2012, when the matters came up for hearing, a grievance was made that one of the applicants had not attended the police station, and consequently, he could not be interrogated. It was also stated that even the presence of the other applicant and other accused persons would be required for the purpose of confronting them with one another. It was, therefore, directed by the order dated 23.2.2012 that the applicants shall attend the police station every day between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for a period of one week.

¶17

The Investigating Officer was directed to file a fresh report on the next date i.e. today.

¶18

Mr. Lodhe informs that the applicants have attended the police station, as directed. The fresh report submitted by the Investigating Officer, through Mr. Lodhe, the learned APP, is taken on record. It shows that a charge sheet is likely to be filed in the matter shortly and that for the remaining investigation, the detention of the applicants, in custody, is not necessary.

¶19

Mr. Lodhe, however, submits that the applicants be directed to

¶20

attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating

cran358.12

-3-

Officer.

The interim orders passed on 24.1.2012 and on 13.2.2012 in criminal application No. 358 of 2010 and in criminal application No. 743 of 2012, respectively, are confirmed.

¶25

The applicants shall, however, attend the police station and make themselves available for investigation/interrogation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶26

Both the anticipatory bail applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

( A. M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶28

rlj/

Sunil Dattatray Ubale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Dattatray Ubale v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah Vs Shivaji Wishwambar Barde

The State of Mah Vs Rahul Dagadu Pakhare and Ors.

Santosh Vikram Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Balasaheb Solanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Omprakash Gangadharrao Hoke Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramrao Shripati Bhagwat Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.