The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court rejected the State's application to cancel bail granted to three accused persons. The court held that investigation was complete and no misuse of liberty was alleged.
Bail granted to the respondents was maintained and not cancelled.
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.
901-APPLN-267-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2013
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
)...APPLICANT
V/s.
DEEPAK RAJAN NIGUDKAR AND ORS.
)...RESPONDENTS
Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State / Applicant.
Mr.Yashodhan Gavankar Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 26th JULY, 2013.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, the learned APP for the applicant / State, and Mr.Yashodhan Gavankar, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2 The respondents were arrested in C.R.No.3 of 2013, registered at Sawantwadi Police Station, District Sindhudurg. The respondent no.1 was arrested on 2.2.2013 and respondent nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 4.2.2013. By an order dated 8.2.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge released them on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, on the condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday for interrogation, until further orders.
avk 1/3
901-APPLN-267-2013
3 The allegation against the respondents is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 324, 323, 452, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. By this application, the State of Maharashtra seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents.
4 It is not in dispute that the investigation in the case is now over. Seven other accused, who were arrested in the case, have also been released on bail now. Charge-sheet has already been filed against all the accused, including the respondents.
5 The order granting bail discusses that the injured, other than the first informant, have sustained only minor injuries, and that, one person from the group of the accused had also sustained some injuries. The order does not mention or discuss the injuries sustained by the first informant. Even the application for bail does not discuss as to the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by the first informant. It may, therefore, be safely presumed that the injuries allegedly sustained by the first informant were not of a serious nature.
6 There is no allegation that the respondents have misused the liberty granted to them.
7 Grant of bail is discretionary. Further, parameters for the grant of bail and for cancellation of bail, are not the same.
avk 2/3
901-APPLN-267-2013
8 After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I do not think it fit to cancel the bail granted to the respondents.
9 The application is rejected.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail granted to the accused in C.R.No.3 of 2013 should be cancelled by this court.
Whether the court has the power to cancel bail after the investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed.
Whether the non-discussion of injuries to the first informant by the bail grant order warrants cancellation of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Deepak Rajan Nigudkar
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
