Dismissed

Mohd. Afsar Mohd. Bismillha v. Supritendent of Police (Rural) Amravati and Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2012WP/329/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought cancellation of bail for Respondent No.3 and directions to arrest him. The Court, accepting the police's undertaking that arrest efforts were continuing, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed accepting the undertaking of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that efforts for arrest would continue.

Mohd. Afsar Mohd. Bismillha Vs Supritendent of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp329.12.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2012

¶5

(Mohd. Afsar Mohd. Bismillha ..vs.. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Amravati and

¶6

others)

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Pathan, Addl.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 14th, 2012.

¶10

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs.

¶11

(a) by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take necessary steps regarding the order dated 30-8-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.507/2004 and dated 08/02/2005 in Criminal Application No.371/2005 in Criminal Appeal No.651/2004 passed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure-C)

¶12

(b) call for the detail report from respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding offences committed by the respondent No.3 including the complaint filed by the petitioner and the action initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent No.3.

¶13

This Court while issuing notice had issued notice only in respect of prayer clause (b) to the

¶14

2 wp329.12.odt

¶15

petition. According to us, no writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take steps for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.3 in various offences.

¶16

In respect of prayer clause (b) to the petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents police officer have still not arrested respondent No.3 though on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered on 28-4-2012.

¶17

On notice being issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply at paragraph 7, it is stated that all efforts have been undertaken by the police officers for effecting the arrest of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 could not be arrested as he has absconded.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states on instructions that the efforts, which have been taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2, would be continued with same zeal and enthusiasm till respondent No.3 is arrested. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court.

¶19

In the light of the said statement, according to us, nothing further survives for consideration in the present petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed accepting the statement of learned Additional

¶20

3 wp329.12.odt

¶21

Public Prosecutor.

¶22

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

pma

Mohd. Afsar Mohd. Bismillha v. Supritendent of Police (Rural) Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Afsar Mohd. Bismillha v. Supritendent of Police (Rural) Amravati and Others

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

Range Forest Officer, Chandrapur Vs Pravinsingh S/O Ramprakashsingh Thakur

Nilkanth Vithoba Ghodeswar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

A Jabbar a Sattar Shaikh Vs Dig Prisons (East) Nagpur and Another

Mohan S/O Yeshwantrao Nahatkar and 3 Ors. Vs Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.

State of Mah. Thr. Police Station Officer Vs Balaji S/O Konduji Rakhade

Raju Gulabrao Naranje, C/145 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department Mantralya, Mumbai and Another