Allowed

Liladhar S/O Ramjag Yadao and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Hudkeshwar P.S. Nagpur

Bombay HC8 Jun 2017ABA/129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal grants an application for pre-arrest bail. The court confirmed an earlier interim protection order, accepting the applicants' antecedents and the submission that a compliance deposit was made, dismissing allegations of non-cooperation. The application was finally allowed.

What did the court decide?

The application for pre-arrest bail was allowed, confirming the interim protection order on 7th March, 2016.

Liladhar S/O Ramjag Yadao and Others Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 aba129.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 129 OF 2016

¶4

(LILADHAR RAMJAG YADAO & 2 OTH...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. PS HUDKESHWAR, NAGPUR)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri E.W.Nawab, Advocate for Applicants. Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

¶9

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATED : JUNE 08, 2017.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in the crime registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Though the endorsement on the application shows that the application of applicant No.2-Ritesh Avinash Lonare is dismissed for non-compliance of the order passed on 24^th April, 2017, the learned advocate for the applicants has pointed that the applicant No.2-Ritesh Avinash Lonare has deposited the amount by cheque dated 8^th May, 2017 in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 24^th April, 2017. Therefore, endorsement on the application of applicant No.2-Ritesh Avinash Lonare as ‘dismissed for non-compliance’ is not correct and therefore, the application of applicant No.2 is also taken up for consideration.

¶13

2 aba129.16

¶14

By the order passed on 7^th March, 2016 the applicants are granted interim protection. During pendency of this application the applicants have deposited an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- before the Court of Magistrate to show their bonafides.

¶15

The chargesheet is not filed. Though the nonapplicant has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, it is not the complaint of the nonapplicant that the applicants have not co-operated with the Investigating Agency.

¶16

The applicants have filed affidavit stating that they are not involved in any other crime/ offence.

¶17

Considering the facts of the case and accepting the submission made on behalf of the applicants regarding antecedents, the interim order grated on 7^th March, 2016 is confirmed.

¶18

The application is allowed .

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

RRaut ..

Liladhar S/O Ramjag Yadao and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Hudkeshwar P.S. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar S/O Ramjag Yadao and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Hudkeshwar P.S. Nagpur

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

Anita W/O. Rajesh Wanve (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Gittikhadan Nagpur

Smt. Rajkuwar W/O. Santosh Gandhi Vs Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh

Govind S/O. Santosh Gandhi Vs Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh

Pradip Madhukar Nandheswar (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso of Police Station Yavatmal City, Yavatmal

Budharam S/O. Daulat Sahare and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Korchi Dist. Gadchiroli

Shri. Rajendra Balaji Bhosale (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Paratwada Ta. Achalpur Amravati