Shubha Govind Mundale v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case alleging forcible dispossession of a rented house under various IPC sections. The Single Judge rejected the application, noting a delay in filing the FIR but finding prima facie evidence of dispossession of property and goods, thereby justifying custodial interrogation.
What did the court decide?
The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
What the court decided
Sherla V.
aba.858.2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.858 OF 2014
Shri Shubh Govind Mundale ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.P.M. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATE: AUGUST 12, 2014
P.C.:
- The application is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. One Uttam B. Wajratkar has reported to the Vengurla police station on 9.6.2014 that he was residing in the house on rental basis in house No.212 (new house No.215), Nath Pai Road, Manik Chowk, Vengurla, District Sindhudurg. His articles in the house i.e., fridge, ceiling fan, mixer, gas cylinder, cupboard, dining table, utensils and wooden cot were lying in the said room. He has been residing in the said house since 1997. His children are residing in Mumbai and, therefore, he visits Mumbai and stays with his children for some time. However, on 1.11.2013, when he visited his children at Mumbai, he received information from one Rohit Vengurlekar on his cellphone that the applicant/accused No.1 has put lock on the room, which he was using. In
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be rejected given the delay in filing the First Information Report and prima facie evidence of forcible dispossession of the complainant's house.
Whether custodial interrogation of the accused is justified in a charge of theft involving forcible dispossession of property.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shubh Govind Mundale
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
MRIDULA BHATKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court