Allowed

Mukesh S/O. Ramesh Giri v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Nandgaon Peth, Amravati

Bombay HC14 Jun 2017ABA/20/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged illegal cutting of trees and theft, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) confirmed an interim protection order dated 13th January, 2017, upon finding no necessity for the applicant's custody.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection order dated 13th January, 2017 was confirmed and application for bail was allowed.

Mukesh S/O. Ramesh Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 aba20.17

¶2

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

¶3

CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 20 OF 2017

¶4

(MUKESH RAMESH GIRI...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. PS NANDGAON PETH, AMRAVATI)

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Shri A.H. Lohiya, Advocate for Applicant. Shri M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

¶8

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2017.

¶9

The applicant, apprehending arrest in crime registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8(1), 21(1)(2) of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, has sought pre-arrest bail. The crime is registered on the complaint lodged by Secretary of Dr. Bonde that three trees which were standing on the boundary of the land owned by Dr. Bonde are illegally cut.

¶10

The record shows that Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 2014 filed by Dr. Bonde against the applicant is pending in respect of the agricultural land. The applicant claims to be an agriculturist.

¶11

The applicant has stated that he is not involved in any other crime/ offence. The applicant is granted interim protection by the order dated 13^th January, 2017. It is not the complaint of the non-applicant that the applicant has misused the interim protection. The non-applicant has not been able to point out that the custody of the applicant is required for further investigation.

¶12

2 aba20.17

¶13

In the above facts, in my view, the order dated 13^th January, 2017 is required to be confirmed. It is confirmed and the application is allowed accordingly.

¶14

JUDGE

¶15

RRaut ..

Mukesh S/O. Ramesh Giri v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Nandgaon Peth, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O. Ramesh Giri v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Nandgaon Peth, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant S/O Jaidev Wasankar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Frezarpura, Amravati

Bandu S/O Gopal Bondale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S. House Officer, P.S.O. Hingna Nagpur

Lalit S/O Narottam Baghele Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Ravanwadi, Gondia and Another

Dinesh S/O. Mohan Runwal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Police Station Officer Police Station Wadgaon Road Yavatmal and 2

Prabodh S/O. Madhukar Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Wadgaon Road Yavatmal and Other

Sachin Deorao Bagade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Imambada Nagpur