Appellant challenged an order granting anticipatory bail. The appellate court found no infirmity in the trial judge's order and noted investigation completion, rejecting the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
YBG
1
926-cri-apeal-552-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.552 OF 2017
Dnyandeo Madhukar Randhir .. Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. G.S.Jadhav for appellant
Mr. Rajan Salvi, APP for respondent No.1 Mr. P.S.Hagare for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
P.C.
1] Present appeal challenges the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 to 4 for grant of anticipatory bail.
2] We have perused the order. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. Apart from that we are informed that the investigation in the matter is complete. No interference therefore, is warranted. Petition is rejected.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J) ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondents warrants interference.
Dnyandeo Madhukar Randhir
State of Maharashtra
B.P. Colabawalla
B.R. Gavai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
