Allowed

Anshul Bammi S/O. Ajay Kumar Bammi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jun 2018ABA/468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the necessity of custodial interrogation for the applicant. Upon perusal of the record, the Court confirmed the interim bail order granted on 9th March 2018, directing the applicant to join the investigation process and submit address documents.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief granted on 9th March 2018 confirmed; applicant directed to submit address documents and attend investigation non-custodially.

Anshul Bammi S/O. Ajay Kumar Bammi Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

aba.468-2018.doc

¶2

Dond

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 468 OF 2018

¶5

Anshul Bammi s/o Ajay Kumar Bammi ..Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent -----

¶6

Mr. Mohd. Moghul for applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

¶8

DATE : 26^th June 2018.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1] By an Order dated 9^th March 2018, the applicant was granted interim relief and was directed to attend the Investigating Officer on stipulated dates and to join the process of investigation.

¶11

2] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the record of investigation.

¶12

3] The prosecutrix was aged about 26 years on the date of lodgment of present crime. It is the prosecution case that, the applicant by giving promise to marry with the prosecutrix, established physical relationship with her and subsequently resiled from his promise. It is alleged that, the applicant also extended threats to the prosecutrix.

¶13

1/2

¶14

aba.468-2018.doc

¶15

4] A bare perusal of the first information report would prima facie indicate that, the prosecutrix was the consenting party to the alleged act as contemplated under Section 376 of Cr. P.C. That the prosecutrix was also residing with the applicant on certain occasions. The record indicates that, as per the directions of this Court, the applicant has joined the process of investigation.

¶16

After perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant for further investigation in the present crime is not necessary.

¶17

5] In view thereof, interim relief granted by Order dated 9^th March 2018 is hereby confirmed subject to further following conditions:-

¶18

(i) Applicant is directed to furnish documents pertaining to his residential address in the State of Haryana and Mumbai to the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today.

¶19

(ii) Applicant is directed to attend the Investigating Officer as and when called for between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 noon on receipt of notice under Section 160 of Cr. P.C and to join the process of investigation till submission of final report

¶20

6] Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

(A.S.GADKARI, J.)

¶22

2/2

Anshul Bammi S/O. Ajay Kumar Bammi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Bammi S/O. Ajay Kumar Bammi 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

Shashikesh Hawaldar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Nambi Tewar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganpat Bhursingh Purohit and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parwat Singh @ Pawan @ Aditya Bhagwati Chauhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Shyamrao Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ruby Sachin Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra