Disposed

Manish B. Jain and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2019WP/115/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directed against orders in a summons case for cheque bounce. The Court directed accused persons to remain present before the Magistrate on a specific date for bail applications and restrained coercive action pending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to remain present before Magistrate on 22nd May 2019 for bail; no coercive action till then.

Manish B. Jain and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

p510-wp-115-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2019

¶4

Manish B. Jain & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Ashutosh R. Gole for the Petitioners. Mr. A.R.Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 09 JANUARY 2019

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Upon urgent mentioning, taken on production board.

¶13

This Petition is directed against the orders dated 26^th December, 2018 and 3^rd January, 2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63^rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai in Summons Case No. 6480 of 2017.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners are prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He further submits that there are nine accused and only accused Nos. 2 and

¶15

3 have applied for bail and granted bail and other accused, who

¶16

Trupti Page 1 of 2

¶17

p510-wp-115-2019.doc

¶18

are the present petitioners before this Court, have never applied for bail. He further submits that there is no order of bail and, therefore, there is no question of furnishing cash bail bond. He further submits that the orders passed by the learned Magistrate are erroneous on this ground. He further submits that all the accused persons shall remain present on the next date i.e., 22^nd May, 2019 before the learned Magistrate and make necessary application for bail. Hence, he prays that the present petitioners are to be protected.

¶19

In view of the prayers and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and on an undertaking given by the petitioners, there is no need to issue notice to respondent No.2 i.e., original complainant. All the accused persons are directed to remain present before the learned Magistrate on 22^nd May, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. and may move application for bail. Till the next date, no coercive action is to be taken against the present petitioners.

¶20

With this, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶22

Trupti Page 2 of 2

Manish B. Jain and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish B. Jain and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sailesh Sreeramulu and Anr. Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Sailesh Sreeramulu and Anr. Vs Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Abdul Rahim Haji Nasir Shekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balbhim Namdev Bhange Vs the State of Maharashtra

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manaal Sayed Mukhtar Ali Vs Sayed Mukhtar Ali and Ors.