Dismissed
Vijay Sambhaji Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCBA/1038/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
6.ba1038.13.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1038 OF 2013
Vijay Smbhaji Thorat. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.
Mr. Harshad Nimbalkar a/w. Mr. Prashant Patil, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Aniket Nikam, advocate for original complainant.
Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : JULY 26, 2013
P.C.:
1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.
2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is arrested on 20th November, 2012 in Crime No. 411 of 2012 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune on 19/11/2012. On the earlier occasion by an order dated 30th April, 2013, this Court had granted liberty to the applicant to withdraw the application. Counsel for
Talwalkar
1/4
2 6.ba1038.13.sxw
the applicant submits that they have not renewed the prayer for bail before the Sessions Court, but directly approached this Court. The explanation for directly approaching this Court is as follows :
(i) In the course of the hearing of the application for bail, this Court had enquired with the Counsel for the applicant as to where was the applicant when his wife committed suicide in the matrimonial home and why he had not immediately informed the police about the death of his wife.
(ii)Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that on 18th November, 2012 the applicant was admitted in I.C.U. of Saijyoti Hospital. The statement of the applicant was recorded in presence of the doctor and he had specifically contended that his wife had committed suicide and he was suffering from depression and had attempted to commit suicide himself by various means. He had cut arteries of both of his wrists and there was excessive bleedings. He was admitted in the hospital and he had explained to the Investigating Officer the circumstances in which he had attempted to commit suicide. The police constable of the Hinjewadi Police Station had lodged the
Talwalkar
2/4
3 6.ba1038.13.sxw
report against the applicant on 9th February, 2013 bearing Crime No. 75 of 2013 for offence punishable under Section 309 and 176(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
3 According to the Counsel for the applicant, at the initial stage, he had discharged the onus of explaining the circumstance in which his wife has died in the matrimonial home. The learned Counsel for the applicant hence, seeks liberty to approach the Sessions Court in the changed circumstance and bring it to the notice of the Sessions Court the change in circumstances in which he has renewed his prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4 The Counsel for the applicant seeks liberty to withdraw this application with further liberty to approach the Sessions Court and file an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which shall be considered by the Sessions Court on its own merits.
Talwalkar
3/4
4 6.ba1038.13.sxw
5 It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case and simply granted liberty to the applicant to move the Sessions Court.
6 With these observations, the application is disposed of as withdrawn.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)
Talwalkar
4/4
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Smbhaji Thorat
State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court