Allowed

Nilesh Pramod Samant v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Aug 2014ABA/519/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay considered an anticipatory bail application where the Investigating Officer was absent, hindering the prosecution. The applicant was prosecuted for receiving stolen laptops. The court granted bail with conditions due to the investigating officer's absence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties aggregating Rs.25,000/- Attend police station weekly. No inducement. Permission for travel required.

Nilesh Pramod Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2014.

¶4

Nilesh Pramod Samant .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Prakash Naik i/by Mr. Pawan for the Applicant.

¶6

APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 8^th August, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The investigating Officer was absent

¶11

on 13, th June, 2014, 27^th June, 2014 and on 18^th July 2014, he was directed to remain present on 25^th July, 2014. On 25^th July, 2014

¶12

he was absent. Today also the Investigating Officer is not present. The learned APP though opposes the application is helpless due to proper assistance by Investigating officer.

¶13

The applicant accused is prosecuted

¶14

for the offence punishable under Sections 461, 380, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, registered

¶15

Page No.1 of 3

¶16

¶17

under C.R. No.291 of 2013 at Lonikand Police

¶18

Station, Pune. It is the case of prosecution that there was theft of 110 laptops and the present applicant was the receiver of stolen

¶19

laptops. Hence F.I.R. was lodged.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶21

submits that case of prosecution is that he has received 110 laptops, but according to

¶22

applicant has has received 46 laptops. He has sold out those laptops and he has provided information regarding the bills and invoices

¶23

as also the names and details of persons to whom the laptops are sold out, to the Investigating Officer.

¶24

The applicant was granted interim

¶25

protection by order dated 5^th May, 2014. As

¶26

there is no assistance and the Investigating

¶27

officer is not present, I allow this application on the following grounds.

¶28

Order

¶29

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest

¶30

Page No.2 of 3

¶31

in above crime, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/ -with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/-.

¶32

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet. iii) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

iv) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶34

v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶35

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶36

Page No.3 of 3

Nilesh Pramod Samant v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Pramod Samant v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Krishnat Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogendra Laxminarayan Taparia Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinayak Krishnat Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalyan Jangali Torane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne Vs the State of Maharashtra