The High Court dismissed an application challenging anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, holding the lower court's discretion was not perverse.
The anticipatory bail order granted by the Sessions Judge was maintained.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1514 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra
.. Applicant
Vs.
Sandhya W/o Sharadchandra Deshpande
and ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the applicant/State
CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15/04/2016
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned A.P.P.
2.Perused the order of the learned Sessions
Judge, Aurangabad dated 19/01/2016. Perusal of the
order would show that the learned Sessions Judge has
exercised his judicial discretion while granting the
anticipatory bail. The order is not perverse. The
Application is therefore dismissed.
[M.T. JOSHI]
JUDGE
arp/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in exercising judicial discretion while granting anticipatory bail.
The State of Maharashtra
Sandhya W/o Sharadchandra Deshpande
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court