Anticipatory bail application disposed of as withdrawn after the Investigating Officer stated arrest was not imminent and the applicant's role was merely that of a former director.
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.
ABA-215-2013
skc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2013
Mrs. Seema Rajesh Jain .. Applicant Vs. The Senior Police Inspector, Malad Police Station & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. A. P. Mundargi – Sr. Advocate i/b. Sajan Patil for Applicant.
Ms. A. A. Mane – APP for State.
Mr. A. H. H. Ponda i/b. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for Intervener.
CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED : 10TH APRIL, 2013.
2] This being second application, merits ought to have been gone into. However, court thought it fit to find out from the I.O. P.I. Chandrakant Nath Gurav, who is present in court, as to whether arrest is eminent.
3] The I.O. states that investigation so far done has disclosed that main accused is Rajesh and role of the present applicant is merely as a Director formerly on record. He therefore says that as and when investigation is complete, the applicant would be informed the date on which charge sheet would be filed, on which date she should
1/2
ABA-215-2013
skc
voluntarily remain present before the Magistrate.
4] In view of the statement, Mr. Mundargi learned Senior Advocate for the applicant says that the statement made by the I.O. gives sufficient protection to the applicant and he would therefore withdraw this application.
Chandka
2/2
Seema Rajesh Jain
Senior Police Inspector, Malad Police Station & Anr.
A. H. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
