Partly allowed

Sachin Shatrughan Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2017WP/2354/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ challenging prior approval under the MCOC Act. The prosecution had filed an application for bail cancellation. The Court granted leave to withdraw the writ with liberty to oppose the bail application, keeping all merits and contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to oppose the prosecution's application for cancellation of bail.

Sachin Shatrughan Patil and Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

osk 913-wp-2354-2017.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2354 OF 2017

¶4

Sachin Shatrughan Patil & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Ms.Sushma T. Mishra for the Petitioners.

¶6

Ms.S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 23^rd NOVEMBER, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1] Heard.

¶11

2] By this petition, the Petitioners are challenging prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (for short “MCOC Act”) in subject FIR bearing CR No.I-81 of 2017 registered with Khadakpada Police Station, Kalyan, District - Thane.

¶12

3] Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have already been released on bail before invocation of the provisions of MCOC Act. However, subsequent to invocation of provisions of MCOC Act, the prosecution has filed Application for

¶13

1/2

¶14

osk 913-wp-2354-2017.odt

¶15

cancellation of the bail and therefore, the Petitioners are constrained to approach before this Court.

¶16

4] Learned A.P.P. fairly states that the Petitioners can advance the arguments relating to invocation of the MCOC Act before the learned Sessions Judge in Application for cancellation of bail. The Statement is accepted.

¶17

5] In the light of the above, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to oppose the application filed by the prosecution for cancellation of the bail in subject crime on the ground that invocation of provisions of

¶18

the MCOC Act is incorrect. Leave with liberty as prayed for granted.

¶19

6] Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of as withdrawn.

¶20

7] It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of

¶21

the case and all points and contentions of the respective parties are

¶22

kept open.

¶23

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶24

2/2

Sachin Shatrughan Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Shatrughan Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Comfort Security Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Trushali Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Chabinath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Aslam Mustafa Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aslam Mustafa Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Wilson Benjamin Castelino Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.