This judgment is a short order rejecting an anticipatory bail application filed under Crime No. 17/2018 for an offence under Section 379 and 34 IPC. The court held that the categorical complaint demonstrated the applicant's involvement, making no case for pre-arrest bail.
The anticipatory bail application was rejected.
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.
1 904) aba134-19.doc
SAS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2019
Sitaram Bapu Salgar ..Applicant. V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.
None for the applicant.
Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for the respondent-State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2019
P.C.:-
None for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Pangari police station, District Solapur the applicant is seeking pre-
arrest bail.
bail is made out. The application is rejected.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in relation to a case registered under section 379 read with 34 IPC.
How to evaluate an anticipatory bail application when the complaint demonstrates the applicant's involvement.
What the legal standard is for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving robbery under Section 379 IPC.
Sitaram Bapu Salgar
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
