Allowed

Raju S/O. Anandrao Mahajan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2016APPLN/1546/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving alleged SECTION 392 and 406 IPC offences arising from a car repair billing dispute, ordering the interim protection made absolute and dispensing with custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted vide order dated 14.03.2016 is made absolute; the application for bail is allowed and disposed of.

Raju S/O. Anandrao Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapln1546-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1546 OF 2016

¶5

Raju s/o Anandrao Mahajan,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Village Phulambri, Taluka
Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra,
through Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Taluka and District Aurangabad

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. J.V. Deshpande and Mr. B.N. Magar, Advocates
for the applicant
Mr. U.S. Mote, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶11

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATE : 05/04/2016

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

1. Heard both sides.

¶14

2.The present applicant, who is apprehending his

¶15

arrest at the hands of Kranti Chowk Police Station,
District Aurangabad in Crime No. 0215/2016, registered
for the offences punishable under section 392 and 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, is praying for his release on

¶16

bail in the event of his arrest.

¶17

2 criapln1546-2016

¶18

3.The documents filed by the applicant on record

¶19

would show that he is the dealer of International
Tractors Limited at Phulambri, District Aurangabad.
Admittedly, he had delivered his own car to the employer
of the present complainant for the purposes of repairing
thereof. It was the contention of the complainant i.e.

¶20

the employee that, at the time of giving the car for
trial after the repairing of the car, the present
applicant took the car to Phulambri and there, he took
the possession of the car and did not give the amount
under the bill. Therefore, the offence came to be
registered.

¶21

4.Considering all the facts on record from which
it is evident that there is dispute regarding payment of
the bill, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the
present applicant is not required. Hence, the following
order :

¶22

5.The interim protection granted by this Court to
the present applicant vide order dated 14th March, 2016
is hereby made absolute on the same terms and

¶23

conditions.

¶24

criapln1546-2016

¶25

¶26

6. The present application is accordingly allowed

¶27

and disposed of.

¶28

[M.T. JOSHI]
 JUDGE

¶29

npj/criapln1546-2016

Raju S/O. Anandrao Mahajan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O. Anandrao Mahajan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ravibhushan Vidyabhushan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh S/O. Madhavrao Pawde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Appa @ Abhimanyu S/O Arjun Chadare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ismalil S/O Kashimsab Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagyawant @ Lala Dashrath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Varsha W/O. Rajendra Wadavrao Vs the State of Maharashtra