The single judge confirmed interim protection on an anticipatory bail application after the investigating officer stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not required.
Interim protection on anticipatory bail confirmed; no order of attendance.
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.
YBG
1
6-aba-1454-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1454 OF 2016
Dr. Santosh Vasant Sidid ..Applicant - Versus - State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr. A.P.Mumdargi, Senior Advocate i/b. Abhijeet A. Desai with Ms. Vrushali Maindad for applicant Mr. Deepak Thakery APP for State
Mr. Vishal Chavan, PSI Cantonment Police Station present.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 20th February 2017.
P.C.
1] The applicant has moved this pre-arrest bail. Learned Prosecutor makes a statement on the instructions from Investigating Officer, Mr. Vishal Chavan , P.S.I., attached to Cantonment Police Station that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the interim protection is hereby confirmed with no
order of attendance.
( Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to confirm interim protection for anticipatory bail application after waiving custodial interrogation.
Dr. Santosh Vasant Sidid
State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
