The High Court rejected the applicant's second bail application, holding that the bail granted to a co-accused did not constitute sufficient changed circumstances given the applicant's proven involvement in an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Application dismissed; bail not granted.
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.
suresh
901-APPA-312.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.312 OF 2016
IN
APPEAL NO.511 OF 2014
Rohit Ira Mudgal .... Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Sachin Jadhav i/by Mr. Tapan Thatte for the Applicant.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 30, 2016
P.C:
Page 1 of 2
suresh
901-APPA-312.2016.doc
Sessions Court has found that to be the position, then, this Court should also give the benefit of the release of the co-accused on bail to the present applicant.
(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of bail granted to a co-accused can serve as changed circumstances for the present applicant involved in the same offence.
Whether the identical role of the accused as found by the Sessions Court warrants bail for the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Application No.970 of 2015Distinguished¶19
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Ira Mudgal
State of Maharashtra
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
