Allowed

Chandrakala Rajendra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Dec 2018ABA/1417/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court confirmed interim bail previously granted, noting the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The court held that the applicant is prima facie liable only under Section 498-A IPC and waived the condition to attend the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail ordered on 26th July, 2018 confirmed; condition to attend the Investigating Officer/Police Station waived.

Chandrakala Rajendra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Ladda

¶2

11-aba-1417-18.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1417 of 2018

¶6

Chandrakala Rajendra Patil Vs.

¶7

.Applicant.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Adv. for the Applicant. Mrs Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1 At the out set, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in Paragraph No.3 of Order dated 26^th July, 2018 in line No.2, the name “Sangram Shinde” has been erroneously typed instead of “Yogesh Rajendra Patil”. The correct name of son of the applicant is “Yogesh Rajendra Patil”. Likewise, correct name of deceased is “Aakansha”.

¶12

2 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶13

APP. Perused the record of investigation.

¶14

3 By an Order dated 26^th July, 2018, the applicant was granted interim relief and was directed to report to the concerned Investigating Officer/ Police Station and to co-operate with the investigating agency. The learned APP on instructions from the Investigating Officer submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 26^th July, 2018 the applicant has attended the

1/2

11-aba-1417-18.doc

Ladda

Investigating Officer and has cooperated in the process of investigation.

¶19

4 Perusal of record would indicate that as per the suicide note left behind by Smt. Aakansha, her husband i.e. Yogesh Rajendra Patil is the principal accused in the crime. The applicant is mother-in-law of the said Aakansha and it prima facie appears that, the applicant is at the most liable for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

¶20

5 In view of the above, interim bail granted by Order dated 26^th July, 2018 is hereby confirmed. However, the condition to attend the concerned Investigating Officer/concerned Police Station is waived.

¶21

Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶23

2/2

Chandrakala Rajendra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakala Rajendra Patil 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

Kanchan Kirti Mudgal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Madhukar Kute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Krishna Shelke and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Rohidas Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivgir @ Bhaiya Dilip Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Ganpat Kadu Vs the State of Maharashtra