Allowed

Shri R Vasudevan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Dec 2019ABA/2759/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed three anticipatory bail applications filed by individuals apprehending arrest due to a property dispute. The court directed that if an FIR is registered leading to arrest, the applicants must be given 72 hours written notice to approach the Sessions Court for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; 72 hours written notice of arrest to be given to applicants to approach Sessions Court.

Shri R Vasudevan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

rpa 1/3 913,914,915-aba-2758,2759,2760-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2758 OF 2019

¶4

Hemant Bhaskarrao Garud .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2759 OF 2019

¶6

R. Vasudevan .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2760 OF 2019

¶8

Bharat Devkinandan Agarwal .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

Mr.Viresh V. Purwant, Advocate for the Applicant in all Applications.

¶10

Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent–State, in all Applications.. …...

¶11

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶12

DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2019.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with complaint lodged by Sandip Chintaman Kamble with Assistant Police Commissioner, Pune City, Khadki Division, Pune

¶15

rpa 2/3 913,914,915-aba-2758,2759,2760-19.doc

¶16

city. It is submitted that the complaint relates to dispute of property. The applicant was called for an inquiry. It is submitted that apprehension of applicants is that they should not be apprehended suddenly after registration of FIR.

¶17

2 Learned APP submitted that the complaint has been received by ACP Khadki Division and the enquiry is in progress. The decision to FIR is not yet taken. In the event, FIR is registered, 72 hours notice in writing would be given to the applicant.

¶18

3 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶19

:: O R D E R ::

¶20

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.2758, 2759 and 2760 of 2019, are allowed;

¶21

(ii) In the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection with complaint lodged by Sandip Chintaman Kamble, applicants be given 72 hours notice in writing.

¶22

rpa 3/3 913,914,915-aba-2758,2759,2760-19.doc

¶23

(iii) In the event such notice is given, the applicants is at liberty to prefer an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court;

¶24

(iv) Anticipatory Bail Applications stand disposed of.

¶25

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Shri R Vasudevan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri R Vasudevan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Anil Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Rajendra Taras Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Hassan Shaikh Abdul Khalik Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mushtaq Kasam Khot and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satishkumar Dharmadev Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aklak Kondaji Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra