Dinesh Nandu Angre v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 1174 of 2017 considered bail under sections 364 and 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The court noted direct and circumstantial evidence, including eye witness testimony, and the risk of witness tampering, holding bail inadvisable.
What did the court decide?
Bail application stands rejected.
What the court decided
1
33-ba-1174-17.doc
habeeb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1174 OF 2017
Dinesh Nandu Angre
… Applicant
vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Debajyoti Talukdar for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 10.08.2017.
P.C.:
- The Applicant is filed for bail in C.R. No. 289 of 2015 registered in Dattawadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
whether bail should be granted in a case involving kidnapping or unlawful confinement read with murder based on circumstantial and direct evidence.
whether the possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses warrants rejection of bail despite some said-to-be-late statements.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Dinesh Nandu Angre
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
T. V. NALAWADE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court