Allowed

Pramod S/O Sudhakar Raut (in Jail) v. State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Bombay HC1 Jun 2012BA/369/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application seeking bail. The applicant, in jail since January 2011, argued that continuing detention was unjustified due to the extreme delay in forensic laboratory analysis of crucial video evidence. The court granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail for Rs. 20,000 with one surety; ordered to attend police station every Sunday and reside at village Sirsi.

Pramod S/O Sudhakar Raut (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

16ba369.12.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Criminal Application (BA) No. 369 of 2012

¶5

Pramod s/o Sudhakar Raut

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S. Umrer

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Mr. Abhay Sambre Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Kadu, APP, for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 01.06.2012.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Mr.Kadu, learned APP objects to this
application on the ground that earlier application
was withdrawn.

¶13

I have perused the earlier order dated
6.1.2012 made by this Court as well as the order
made by the trial Court. It appears that forensic
evidence in relation to video clippings has not
been yet assessed by the Forensic Laboratory.
Admittedly the video clippings are in possession
of Forensic Laboratory, and therefore, there is no
question of tampering with the same. The
applicant is in jail since 13.1.2011 and he is not
being released only because of pendency of the

¶14

16ba369.12.odt

¶15

2/2

¶16

said report of forensic laboratory. As earlier
stated, there is no chance of applicant
tampering with the said evidence which will be
crucial and will determine the fate of the case.
The trial Court itself has observed in its order
that there are 588 cases pending with the Forensic
Laboratory and per month 2-3 cases are analysed.
With this speed of analysis, I do not think that
evidence in respect of video clippings in the
present crime would be analysed in a reasonable
time. It also cannot be forgotten that without
analytical report of the said video clippings the
trial cannot proceed. In view of the above, there
is no point in keeping the applicant in jail for
any more time. However, by imposing certain
conditions, I am inclined to release the applicant
on bail. Hence, the following order.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

 The applicant shall be released on bail
on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
with one solvent surety in like amount. He shall
attend police station Bela every Sunday between 4
p.m. and 6 p.m. until further orders. He shall
reside at village Sirsi, Tq. Umrer, District
Nagpur, until further orders.

¶19

Hamdast allowed.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

/TA/

Pramod S/O Sudhakar Raut (in Jail) v. State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O Sudhakar Raut (in Jail) v. State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab Gulabrao Shinde and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Balapur Distt Akola

Ganesh @ Nitin S/O Mahadeo Kaithwas Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Rajura Distt Chandrapur

Abdul Zahed S/O Sk Mahemood Vs State of Maharashtra through Its in Charge Ps, Mangrulpir Distt Washim

Madhav Dhansingh Rathod Vs the Washim Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thru. G.M. and Anor.

Jaiprakash Tulshiram Kukade Vs State of Maharashtra

Pradeep S/O Nathuji Gedam Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Pso , Duggipar Tah Sadak Arjunips Duggipar