Single judge rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused/ receiver of stolen cattle. The court held recovery of animals for identification was necessary and custodial interrogation required, leading to rejection.
Application for bail rejected; interim relief vacated.
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.
Cri. Appln. No. 2668/14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2668 OF 2014
Shaikh Jaker @ Babbu Shaikh Budhan ....Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
....Respondents.
Mr. V.C. Patil h/f. Mr. I.G. Durrani, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for State.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 15th September, 2014.
ORDER :
Cri. Appln. No. 2668/14
2
they had sold the cattle to present applicant, who runs a slaughter house.
is vacated.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, being the purchaser/sale receiver of stolen cattle, is entitled to anticipatory bail given that the cattle needed to be recovered for identification or evidence.
Whether there was material to cancel the interim relief granted earlier in the matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dilip Pandit Rothe vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶2
2003 (3) B.Cr.C. 678 [Dilip Pandit Rothe Vs. State of Maharashtra]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaikh Jaker @ Babbu Shaikh Budhan
The State of Maharashtra
T.V. Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
