Bajirao Jaywant Shinde and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
Anticipatory bail application by accused in a sudden free fight assault case. High Court confirmed interim pre-arrest bail subject to standard conditions including attendance at police station, non-tampering with evidence, and prohibition against absconding.
What did the court decide?
Interim pre-arrest bail confirmed subject to attendance at police station weekly, non-tampering with evidence, no threats to complainant, no absconding, and furnishing of address with proof.
What the court decided
10.ABA201_2017.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 201 OF 2017
- Bajirao Jaywant Shinde 2. Sanjay Balwant Shinde 3. Santosh Vitthal Shinde 4. Raosaheb Jaywant Shinde ... Applicants Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. I.U. Shah, Police Havaldar, Lasalgaon Police Station present.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 13th February, 2017.
P.C.:
This Application is moved by the applicants/accused under section 438 of Cr. P.C. The applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. I-138 of 2016 registered with Lasalgaon Police Station, Nashik.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to confirm interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants charged with offences under IPC in a sudden free fight.
Whether bail condition should prohibit tampering with evidence or pressuring the complainant.
Whether bail condition should impose reporting obligations and non-absconding restrictions.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bajirao Jaywant Shinde
- applicant
Sanjay Balwant Shinde
- applicant
Santosh Vitthal Shinde
- applicant
Raosaheb Jaywant Shinde
- respondent
State of Maharashtra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court