The High Court rejected an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. The court found no reason to interfere with the bail order as the trial was ongoing and the respondent was attending court dates.
Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed and bail remained in force.
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.
34 appln 634-15=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 634 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra
… Applicant
V/s.
Wajid Abdul S/o Wahid Shaikh … Respondent
Mrs. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Applicant.
CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2018
P.C.:
. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent by
the learned Special Judge, Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No. 9 of 2013. The learned Trial Court after recording a finding as contemplated under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act that, there is reasonable ground that the Respondent may not be ultimately convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120 (B) and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, was pleased to release the Applicant on bail.
2 The record indicates that the trial of the said case has already commenced and the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as of today. It is submitted by the learned APP that Respondent is attending all the dates before the Trial Court.
3 In view of the above, I find no reason to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent by the impugned order.
1/2
Sneha Chavan
34 appln 634-15=.doc
4 Application is accordingly, rejected.
(A.S.GADKARI, J.)
2/2
Sneha Chavan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled.
The State of Maharashtra
Wajid Abdul S/o Wahid Shaikh
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
