Sachin Dashrath Bhosale (Intervener) v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The Bombay High Court rejected the prayer for intervention by Sachin Dashrath Bhosale in bail proceedings based on the Supreme Court decision in Sudeep Kumar Bafna, holding that bail and anticipatory bail diverge sufficiently to preclude such intervention.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for intervention dismissed; intervener entitled to exercise rights under Section 301 CrPC.
What the court decided
APPP 71614.odt
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.716 OF 2014
(For Intervention)
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2175 OF 2014
Sachin Dashrath Bhosale.Intervener
In the matter between
Tanaji Jalindar Shinde .Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.Respondent
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an intervener is entitled to intervene in independent bail proceedings under Section 301 CrPC in light of the Apex Court decision in Sudeep Kumar Bafna.
What rights an intervener retains in bail proceedings if intervention is disallowed.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Tanaji Jalindar Shinde
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
P.D.KODE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court