Dismissed

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Dec 2017BA/1873/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail applications under Section 439 IPC for offences of theft and conversion, the High Court held the applicant and her son were habitual offenders. Rejecting the plea for bail, the court refused enlargement without explicitly stating the reasoning. (Decision not provided in text)

What did the court decide?

Bail applications stood rejected. Applicant was denied enlargement.

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2017)

rsk

10-BA-1872-17.doc

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1872 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1873 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1881 OF 2017

¶6

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Applicant

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for the Applicant. Ms.Veena Shinde, APP for the Respondent . Mr. J. B. Borse, PSI Vishrantwadi P.Stn. Pune City.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 12^th December, 2017

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard. These applications are under section 439 of the IPC. The Applicant herein is arrested in Crime Nos.46/2017, 2227/2016 and 131/2016 registered at Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 380, 457, 413, 414 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Mr.Sarda, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. That the Applicant has been in custody for more than 9 months and therefore she deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Ms. Shinde, Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court to the papers of investigation and has submitted that the present Applicant was with her son who is a juvenile in conflict with law and who day in, and day out used to bring stolen articles at home. It is submitted by the learned

rsk

10-BA-1872-17.doc

2/2

APP that the jewelery which was stolen was converted by the Applicant and her husband and therefore the said jewelery could never have been identified by the persons who had lost them. It is submitted that the husband of the Applicant is also the co-accused against whom there are more than 20 offences registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is no material on record to indicate that the stolen jewelery was converted into other forms of jewelery and therefore the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

There is a huge recovery at the hands of the Applicant and her son. They are habitual offenders. Therefore, in the present case no sympathy can be shown to the present Applicant. It is apparent from the papers of investigation that the mother and son have indulged into several offences of theft. It is in these circumstances that no case for bail is made out. Applications stand rejected.

¶20

(SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Satish Bapurav Surwase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Nagnath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Jaindmal Agicha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babaso Bapu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Nanabhau Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra