Allowed

Umesh Sudam Yampure v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jan 2019ABA/2728/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed multiple anticipatory bail applications. Court granted bail subject to conditions including execution of personal bond, attendance at police station, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on executing PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each; directed to attend IO on specific days; prohibited from tampering evidence or influencing witnesses.

Umesh Sudam Yampure Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/3 Yadav 910-B.aba.2728.18 aw. connected applications

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2728 OF 2018

¶4

Umesh Sudam Yampure … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2715 OF 2018

¶6

Abhijeet Tukaram Jadhav & Ors. … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2717 OF 2018

¶8

Pravin Ananda Farande & Ors. … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sachin H. Deokar for Applicants in all the Applications. Ms. J. S. Lohokare, APP for Respondent – State in ABA No.2728 of 2018. Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent – State in ABA Nos.2715 of 2018 and 2717 of 2018.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2019.

¶11

2/3 Yadav 910-B.aba.2728.18 aw. connected applications

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Having heard the learned Counsel for respective parties, it is noticed that the Applicants in all the Applications are also booked for an offfence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and so as to justify the same the learned APP has relied upon the video recording. The memory card of video recording seems to have been seized, however, there are no details as regards the content of such video recording so as to identify the role of each of the Applicants who are named as Accused in the crime in question.

¶14

The learned APP, on instruction, submits that the custodial interrogation of the Applicants in Criminal ABA Nos. 2728 of 2018, 2715 of 2018, 2717 of 2018 and Applicant No.2 – Sachin Vishnu Changan in ABA No. 2718 of 2018 is not required. Since the statement is made on instructions, same is accepted. Hence, the following order.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(A) In the event of arrest in Crime No. 457 of 2018 punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 120-B, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 37(1)(3) and 135 of the

¶17

3/3 Yadav 910-B.aba.2728.18 aw. connected applications

¶18

Mumbai Police Act all the Applicants be released on executing PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.

¶19

(B) Till filing of the chargesheet, each of the Applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer on any Tuesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon .

¶20

¶21

All the Anticipatory Bail Applications stand allowed to the

¶22

above extent.

¶23

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Umesh Sudam Yampure v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Sudam Yampure 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

Kunal Vilas Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Achyut Bandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devendra Laxman Kaparti Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Kantilal Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonya @ Akash Avinash More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amin Abbas Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra