Bipin Dhudku Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
This order rejects an anticipatory bail application filed by the Block Development Officer charged with official misconduct in a government sanitation scheme. The Court held that custodial interrogation is required given the applicant's supervisory role and prima facie evidence of aiding a co-accused.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; pre-arrest bail rejected and custodial interrogation considered necessary.
What the court decided
4 ABA 882 OF 2014
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.882 OF 2014
Bipin Dhudku Ingale .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATE : 27th August, 2014
P.C.
This application is moved for
anticipatory bail as the applicant is facing chargees under Sections 406, 409, 420, read
with 34 of the Indian penal Code registered
under C.R.No.187 of 2014 at Mohol police
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant facing charges under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 IPC for alleged fraud in a government toilet construction scheme.
Whether the applicant having a supervisory role in the scheme and helping a principal accused warrants custodial interrogation.
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail on parity with a previous order granting anticipatory bail to a similarly placed officer.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bipin Dhudku Ingale
- 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