Allowed

Anil Sudam Mali and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Apr 2019ABA/306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed an interim anticipatory bail order for two sets of applicants. Despite the filing of a charge-sheet, the court allowed the applications, noting the applicants acted only as witnesses and purchasers. The prosecution failed to trace the original vendor, but the court held this did not justify rejecting the bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Interim order confirmed; applicants must inform the I.O. in writing three weeks in advance if leaving Pune for more than three days.

Anil Sudam Mali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ppn 1 11.aba-306.18 wt anr..doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2018

¶4

Anil Sudam Mali & Anr. Vs.	.. Applicants
State of Maharashtra	.. Respondent

¶5

ALONG WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2018

¶6

Prashant Nivrutti Sangar & Ors. Vs.	.. Applicants
State of Maharashtra	.. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate I/by Mr.Dilip Bodake for the applicants. Ms.S.S. Kaushik, APP for respondent-State. Mr.B.S. Khandekar, Police Naik, Vaduj Police Station, Satara.

¶8

CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 1^st April 2019

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Both these applications were heard together as they arise out of C.R. No. 34 of 2018. Heard learned senior counsel for applicant and

¶11

learned APP for respondent-State. Investigating Officer is present.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.306 of 2018 had only acted as

¶13

witnesses and as such had identified the vendors of the documents executed by Murlidhar Wagh in favour of applicants in connected

¶14

ppn 2 11.aba-306.18 wt anr..doc

¶15

Anticipatory Bail Application No.307 of 2018, who had accordingly purchased the landed property and had contended that having considering limited role of applicant as aforesaid and since investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed, interim order in favour of applicants be confirmed by imposing suitable conditions as neither of these applicants can be termed as beneficiaries in the present crime.

¶16

Learned APP had not disputed above facts of complaint and

¶17

on instructions, makes a statement that applicants had attended Investigating Officer and have co-operated with investigation.

¶18

This Court while protecting applicants by interim directions, observed that no report was lodged for about 4 years by alleged vendors in respect of sale transaction wherein applicants are witnesses and purchasers respectively as stated aforesaid. Case of prosecution thus prima facie appears to be that applicants Anil Mali and Pravin Deshmukhe as witnessed had identified Murlidhar Wagh who has executed sale deed in favour of applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.307 of 2018. According to prosecution, said Murlidhar Wagh is not traceable. Considering the facts as aforesaid and role assigned to applicants, fact of Murlidhar Wagh being absconding can be

¶19

ppn 3 11.aba-306.18 wt anr..doc

¶20

no ground to reject application as inspite of filing of charge-sheet,

¶21

prosecution can always take steps and on collecting evidence, sufficient to file supplementary charge-sheet, may do the needful. In that view of the matter, application is allowed as per order below :-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) Interim order passed by this Court on 21^st February 2018 stands confirmed with direction to applicant to inform there whereabouts to

¶24

I.O. if they intend to leave Pune for any reason extending period of three weeks and above in writing, in advance;

¶25

(ii) Both applications are disposed of as allowed in above terms.

¶26

P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

Anil Sudam Mali and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sudam Mali and Anr. 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

Somanath Banwarilal Kedia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hiralal Vitthal Gajjam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Rajaram Chormule and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shukracharya Baswant Madale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Nivrutti Sangar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Popat Kasabe Vs the State of Maharashtra