The court rejected a second bail application by Pammi Bhagwan Chaudhary, holding that the examination of one non-prosecution witness did not amount to a substantive change of circumstances following a previous rejection.
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 39 - BA No.15-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2019
Smt. Pammi Bhagwan Chaudhary ] … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra. ] … Respondent
Mr. Rama D. Pawade for Applicant. Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for State.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 03 JUNE, 2019
P. C. :-
Purti Parab
1 of 2
2 39 - BA No.15-19.doc
panchas has been examined. According to Ld. Counsel, the pancha
has not supported the prosecution case. In my view, this cannot be termed as change in circumstance. There are other witnesses which are to be examined including Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer can throw light on discrepancies in the evidence of the pancha.
ORDER
Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
2 of 2
Purti Parab
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the examination of a single pancha witness who did not support the prosecution constitutes a change of circumstance sufficient to grant bail.
Pammi Bhagwan Chaudhary
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
