Allowed

Omprakash Gangadharrao Hoke v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012APPLN/395/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing on an application for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail. The court observed that no reply was filed, the misappropriated amount was returned, and co-accused had taken responsibility. The investigation was ongoing. The court confirmed the interim bail order with conditions regarding police stations attendance and address changes.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail order dated 25.1.2012 is confirmed on the condition that the applicant attends the police station daily for one week and notifies any address change.

Omprakash Gangadharrao Hoke Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cran395.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 395 OF 2012

¶5

Omprakash s/o Gangadharrao Hoke ...Applicant Versus

¶6

The state of Maharashtra and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED : 1ST MARCH, 2012

¶11

ORAL ORDER :-

¶12

1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents.

¶13

The applicant has already been granted interim anticipatory bail, by an order dated 25.1.2012. It is not in dispute that the whole of the misappropriated amount has been returned to the bank. The case of the applicant is that the co-accused has taken the responsibility for the alleged wrongs of himself.

¶14

Today, no reply opposing the application has been filed. No new grounds are urged. It is, however, stated that, the investigation is in progress and that the presence of the applicant before the investigating

¶15

cran395.12

¶16

-2-

¶17

agency would be required for investigation/interrogation. There, however, is no necessity of detention of the applicant in custody, from the point of view of investigation.

¶18

Under the circumstances, it would be proper to confirm the interim order by imposing appropriate conditions on the applicant.

¶19

The interim order passed on 25.1.2012 is confirmed on the following conditions:-

¶20

i) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station on 3.3.2012 at 11.00 a.m. and make himself available for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall thereafter attend the police station every day between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. for a period of one week and make himself available for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall even thereafter attend the police station and make himself available for investigation/interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶21

ii) The applicant shall not change his residential address without giving previous intimation of the change in address to the investigating Officer in writing.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

( A. M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶24

rlj/

Omprakash Gangadharrao Hoke v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Gangadharrao Hoke 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

Sunil Dattatray Ubale Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramrao Shripati Bhagwat Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.