Allowed

Prakash Poonamchand Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2017ABA/347/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail applications filed by Lalit M. Lalwani, Prakash P. Jain, and Achal Walchand Jain concerning a land dispute involving offences under IPC sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 470, 471 were heard. The court observed the facts briefly and allowed the applications.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief already granted was confirmed; anticipatory bail applications were allowed.

Prakash Poonamchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Rng 1

¶2

sr.2.aba346.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2017

¶5

Lalit M.Lalwani .. Applicant vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

with ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2017

¶7

Prakash P.Jain .. Applicant vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

with ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.348 OF 2017

¶9

Achal Walchand Jain .. Applicant vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶10

Mr.Sandeep D.Paigude Advocate a/w Ms.Reshma More for Applicants Mr.S.S.Hulke Additional Public Prosecutor for State-Respondent

¶11

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, J DATE: 22 AUGUST 2017 P.C.

¶12

This application is filed for anticipatory bail in C.R.No.624 of 2016 registered in Bharati Vidytapeeth Police Station, Katraj Pune for the offences punishable under sections

¶13

463, 464, 465,468,470, 471, etc of the IPC.

¶14

Rng 2 sr.2.aba346.17

¶15

Both sides are heard. Nobody turned up for the

¶16

Complainant.

¶17

It is the case of the First informant that she purchased one acre land from Survey no.44 under a Sale Deed dated 14.9.2981. The submission made show that the total area of Survey no.44 is 760 Ares. It is the case of the First informant that in the year 2015 she got measurement of her portion of land and accordingly map of measurement is delivered to her. It is her case that this measurement was challenged by the Respondent-accused and the authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 has set aside the measurement made on the basis of the application given by the First informant. It appears that in the year 2005 measurement was taken on an application moved by the accused and accordingly the map was prepared. There is a possibility that the real grievance is about the alleged encroachment made on the property of the First informant. Under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 the procedure is given to challenge the measurement and that procedure was adopted by the present Applicant-accused.

¶18

sr.2.aba346.17

¶19

Rng 3

¶20

In view of the said circumstances, this Court holds

¶21

that protection needs to be given to the Applicant in the present matter.

¶22

In the result, Application is allowed. Interim relief

¶23

already granted earlier is confirmed.

¶24

Since in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.347 and

¶25

348 case of the Applicants are similar, they are allowed

¶26

accordingly.

¶27

(T.V.NALAWADE,)

¶28

Rng 4 sr.2.aba346.17

Prakash Poonamchand Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Poonamchand Jain 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

Vikas @ Vilas Ramdas Aahire Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit @ Gomya Ramchandra Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bharat Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav S/O Govind Kakirde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalit Manilal Lalwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Achal Walchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.