Partly allowed

Satish S/O Ramrao Gawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016WP/919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition was partially dismissed and partially allowed. The Court dismissed the petition regarding only petitioner no. 1. Conversely, the Court allowed the petition and granted relief to the remaining petitioners (nos. 2 to 8) after finding the allegations against them were too vague, lacked specific dates, and cited no overt acts.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) as regards petitioner nos. 2 to 8.

Satish S/O Ramrao Gawale and Others Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 18-crwp919-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.919 OF 2016

¶4

1. Satish s/o. Ramrao Gawale,

¶5

2. Ramrao s/o. Laxman Gawale,

¶6

3. Subhadrabai w/o. Ramrao Gawale,

¶7

4. Prashant s/o. Ramrao Gawale,

¶8

5. Bharti w/o. Prashant Gawale,

¶9

6. Usha w/o. Chandrakant Hiwale,

¶10

7. Pratiksha w/o. Devidas Dabhade,

¶11

8. Pushpa w/o. Sudam Magar ..Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The State of Maharashtra
and anr...Respondents

¶14

Mr.S.M.Godsay,Advocatei/b.Mr.S.G.Magre,
Advocate for petitioners

¶15

Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for respondent no.1

¶16

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2016

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

We have heard the learned Counsel

¶19

appearing for the petitioners and the learned APP
for the respondent no.1.

¶20

2 18-crwp919-16.odt

¶21

2.We have carefully perused the allegations

¶22

made in the FIR. We are not inclined to entertain
the petition of petitioner no.1. Hence, the Writ
Petition as regards petitioner no.1 stands
dismissed.

¶23

3.So far as petitioner nos.2 to 8 are
concerned, it appears that petitioner nos.2 and 3
are aged persons. Petitioner nos.4 and 5 are
residing at Kalyan, Dist. Thane. Petitioner no.6
is residing at Aurangabad, but at a different
place than the matrimonial house. Petitioner no.7
is residing at Dahanu, Dist. Palghar. Respondent
no.8, though residing at Aurangabad, but at a
different place than the matrimonial house. The
allegations made against petitioner nos.2 to 8 are
vague. No specific overt acts are attributed to

¶24

them. No specific dates are mentioned.

¶25

4.In that view of the matter, we are

¶26

inclined to allow the petition filed by petitioner

¶27

3 18-crwp919-16.odt

¶28

nos.2 to 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) as regards
petitioner nos.2 to 8 only.

¶29

5.Thepetitionstandsdisposedof
accordingly.

¶30

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶31

kbp

Satish S/O Ramrao Gawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish S/O Ramrao Gawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Vs Rajendrasingh Bhagwansingh Babri and Others

Krishna S/O Daulat Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Santosh S/O Narayan Kukar Vs the State of Maharashtra