Disposed

Pandurang Ramrao Randive v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Mar 2021ABA/169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple anticipatory bail applications were filed by various accused persons in connection with a criminal investigation by EOW Pune. The investigating agency filed an affidavit stating it did not require custody of the applicants for interrogation. Relying on this stand, the court allowed the withdrawal of applications and disposed of them.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw anticipatory bail applications was allowed; all intervention applications were disposed of.

Pandurang Ramrao Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

25-ABA-29-21-&-ors.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2021

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.577 OF 2021

¶7

Krushnarao Khandoji Bandal .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2021 Ramesh Shankar Wani .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2021 Pandurang Ramrao Randive .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.575 OF 2021 Sou. Kusum Chandrakant Deshmukh .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 74 OF 2021

¶12

WITH

¶13

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2021 Swati Sunil Umrani .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶14

Nesarikar

¶15

2 / 4 25-ABA-29-21-&-ors.odt

¶16

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2021 Sou. Ashwini Rajendra Thorave & Ors. .... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.574 OF 2021 Madhukar Dnyanoba Bandal .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2021 Ajay Pannalal Rander .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent …....

¶17

Mr. Prashant M. Patil, for Applicant in ABA/29/2021.

¶18

Mr. Siddheshwar N. Biradar, for Applicant in ABA/195/2021.

¶19

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for Applicants in ABA/169/2021 and ABA/172/2021.

¶20

Mr. Avinash B. Avhad, for Applicant in ABA/58/2021.

¶21

Mr. Pawan Mali, for Applicant in ABA/74/2021.

¶22

Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for Applicant in ABA/205/2021.

¶23

Mr. S. R. Chopade a/w Radhika S. Panchpor, for Applicant in ABA/67/2021.

¶24

Ms.Sapna Krishnappa, for Intervenor in IA/577/21, IA/575/21, IA/576/21 and IA/574/21.

¶25

Mr. Ajay Patil and Mr. S. H. Yadav, APPs for the State/Respondent.

¶26

IO – Anita Uday More (Sr. Police Inspector), EOW, Pune, present.

¶27

25-ABA-29-21-&-ors.odt

¶28

3 / 4

¶29

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 02^nd MARCH, 2021

¶30

P.C. :

¶31

In all these applications common order is passed.

¶32

The Applicants in all these applications are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.1500/2020, registered with Sahakar Nagar Police station, which is being investigated now by E.O.W. Pune City. Today, the learned APP has filed a joint affidavit mentioning the accused whose custody is required and accused whose custody is not required. There is a third category, where custody is not required as of today, but in future there is possibility that their custody may be necessary.

¶33

In all these applications names of the Applicants are mentioned in the category where the investigating agency does not want custody of these Applicants. The affidavit is taken on record and specific statement of learned APP made on instructions of the Investigating Officer who is present in the

¶34

4 / 4 25-ABA-29-21-&-ors.odt

¶35

Court, is recorded. Thus, the investigating agency’s specific stand is that they do not want custody of all these Applicants for the purposes of interrogation.

¶36

In view of this categorical statement and affidavit filed today, the learned counsel appearing for all these Applicants state that they do not press this application specifically in view of statement made by the investigating agency and they seek permission to withdraw these applications. Strictly considering the statement made by the investigate agency, applications are allowed to be withdrawn and are disposed of as such.

¶37

All the intervention applications in all these applications do not survive as the investigation agency does not want the Applicants’ custody. Therefore all the intervention applications in these particular applications are also disposed of.

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Pandurang Ramrao Randive v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Ramrao Randive v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Namdeo Sopan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sainath S/O. Ambadas Ramkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lakhan Balasaheb Parakhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krushnarao Khandoji Bandal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sou. Kusum Chandrakant Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Dnyanoba Bandal Vs the State of Maharashtra