The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bond under Section 107 CrPC had become infructuous as the stipulated period had already expired.
Petitions dismissed as rendered infructuous.
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.
WP 1071-10.odt
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Rajesh Gopal Sharma & ors .Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & anr..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2010
Ravi Kishan Rajpal.Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
None for the Petitioners
Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:14TH SEPTEMBER, 2012
P.C.
.None for the petitioners.
2.The learned APP points out that the
order challenged required the petitioner to
furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a
period of one year under Section 107 of the Code
Page 1 of 2
WP 1071-10.odt
of Criminal Procedure. This order was passed on
23rd February, 2010. Therefore, a period of bond
is already over.
3. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed as rendered infructuous.
(R.C.CHAVAN, J.)
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bond under Section 107 CrPC is maintainable after the period of the bond has expired.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Gopal Sharma & ors.
Ravi Kishan Rajpal
The State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court