Allowed

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC2 Nov 2012APPLN/4588/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail applications involving charges of murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the applications, granting bail with a secured premium and security against tampering with witnesses, following a prior decision.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in crime no.466 of 2010 upon furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000 each with one solvent surety and undertaking not to tamper with witnesses.

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appln. 4588-2012+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4588 OF 2012

¶4

Rohidas @ Haridas S/o Suryakant Gunjal Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶5

AND

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4589 OF 2012

¶7

Santosh S/o Rabaji Mohite Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶8

Mr. Ajit S. Zarekar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. P.N. Muley, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 2ND NOVEMBER, 2012

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

1. Heard both sides.

¶12

2.The present applicants, who are arrested in
crime no.466 of 2010 registered with Pathardi Police
Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence
punishable under section 395,341,120(B),109 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, are praying for their release on bail.

¶13

3.Learned counsel for the applicants points

¶14

towards the order passed in the same crime by another
learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Application
no.2299 of 2011 dated 1.7.2011, wherein similarly situated
accused Sachin was released on bail.

¶15

(2) Cri. Appln. 4588-2012+

¶16

4.In the circumstances, the present Applications

¶17

are allowed. The applicants be released on bail in crime
no.466 of 2010 registered with Pathardi Police Station,
Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence punishable
under section 395,341,120(B),109 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one solvent
surety. The solvent surety is to be of the Tehsil in
which the place of residence of applicants is shown.

¶18

They are not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

arp/

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohidas@Haridas Suryakant Gunjal v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Salim Sk. Rashid Vs the State of Mah

Imtiyaz Khan Sartaj Khan Vs the State of Mah

Imtiyaz Khan Sartaj Khan Vs the State of Mah

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahesh Gajendra Shewale Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Santosh Rabaji Mohite Vs the State of Mah