Disposed

Sangeeta Rajat Narang v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2019WP/1779/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay extended time for a petitioner to furnish surety, stayed the non-bailable warrant, and corrected a monetary figure in an earlier order based on the State's intervention application.

What did the court decide?

Time extended to 6th June 2019 to furnish surety; non-bailable warrant stayed pending furnishing of surety; earlier order corrected regarding amount.

Sangeeta Rajat Narang Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

902.WP1779_2019.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2019

¶5

Sangeeta Rajat Narang

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 216 OF 2019 IN

¶11

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2019

¶12

Nandlal Thawarmal Jangid vs.

¶13

… Applicant

¶14

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶15

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr. Shirodkar Ateet, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 216 of 2019. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the respondent/State.

¶16

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 2^nd May, 2019

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

The learned counsel Mr. Gole appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish surety of Rs.15,000/- but only seeks four weeks time to furnish the surety as her son's examination is going on and the petitioner is a resident of Delhi. He submitted that the trial Court has issued Non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for non-compliance of the order of furnishing surety, which may be stayed.

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

902.WP1779_2019.doc

¶21

The statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted. Hence, time to furnish surety as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate is extended upto 6^th June, 2019. The surety is to be furnished before the trial Court. Till 6^th June, 2019, the order of Non-bailable warrant is stayed. If the surety is not furnished, the trial Court to proceed with the execution of Non-bailable warrant.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant/intervener submitted that in the order dated 26^th April, 2019 in paragraph 3, the amount of Rs.57,00,000/- is wrongly mentioned, it should be read as Rs.58,00,000/-.

¶23

The amount of Rs.57,00,000/- is to be read as Rs.58,00,000/-. Accordingly, the order dated 26^th April, 2019 is corrected.

¶24

Writ Petition is disposed of. Criminal Application for intervention is also disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

Sangeeta Rajat Narang v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Rajat Narang 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

Gautam Janardan Kaskar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil D. Modi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajiv Deepak Mata Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amar Shridhar Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayesh Raghunath Mhadlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indrajit I. Rastogi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.