Disposed

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jun 2013ABA/600/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court, noting no urgency and parallel interim protection granted to co-accused by the Sessions Court, directed the applicant receive similar interim protection pending the Sessions Court's final hearing. Bail was to be granted on ₹15,000.

What did the court decide?

Directed applicant to be protected by an interim order as per Sessions Court; arrestee to be released on bail of Rs.15,000 pending final hearing.

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3 ABA-600-13

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.600 of 2013

¶6

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Ms.Shamika Sagar Ranade, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J (Vacation Court)

¶9

DATED : JUNE 01, 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 By consent, heard finally.

¶12

2 The applicant's application for Anticipatory Bail is pending before the Court of Sessions. The applicant is however, not granted any interim protection during the pendency of the said application, which I am informed is now fixed for hearing on 5 June 2013 by the Sessions Court. The co-accused in the case have been granted an interim protection by the Sessions Court. It is under these circumstances that the applicant who is the husband of the First Informant has approached this Court.

¶13

2/3 ABA-600-13

¶14

3 It appears that earlier also, an application for Anticipatory Bail was moved by the applicant and other accused in the said case, and that, at that time, the Investigating Agency had not shown any anxiety to arrest the applicant and the other accused. The First Information Report had not been registered at that time though a complaint had been received by the police. The police had agreed to give 72 hours previous notice in writing to the applicant and other accused before effecting their arrest, which accordingly has been given, and it is thereafter that the application for Anticipatory Bail which is now pending before the Sessions Court was preferred.

¶15

4 Thus, there is no urgency of immediately apprehending the applicant.

¶16

5 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no substance in the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, and that there is no substance in the allegations with respect to an offence punishable under section 406 of the IPC.

¶17

6 In my view, these contentions can be taken into consideration by the Court of Sessions while finally deciding the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the applicant, and other accused pending before it.

¶18

7 In my opinion, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct that the applicant should be protected by an

¶19

3/3 ABA-600-13

¶20

interim order as has been passed by the Sessions Court in favour of the other accused in the said case.

¶21

8 In the event of the arrest of the applicant, he be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in like amount.

¶22

9 This order shall remain in force only till the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court is heard and finally decided by that Court.

¶23

10 Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

11 All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶25

order.

¶26

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj J. Khathuria and Others Vs Garib Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Balraj J. Khathuria and Others Vs Garib Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Hitesh Himmatlal Lakhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalpana Dattatraya Bhosale Vs Nagabai Shambhu Dudhale and Anr.

Lakkadsing Sheetalsing Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra