Uma W/O Ramchandra @ Sanjay Pujari v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The single-judge criminal court rejected an anticipatory bail application. It observed that documents executed between parties indicated a money lending transaction disguised as a land sale, making custodial interrogation necessary.
What the court decided
51-ABA-398-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2021
Uma W/o Ramchandra @ Sanjay Pujari .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Ritesh Thobde, for the applicant. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :11th FEBRUARY 2021
P.C. :
- The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 442 of 2020 registered at Mandrup Police Station,Solapur, on 26/12/2020 under Sections 39 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr. Ritesh Thobde, learned Counsel for
the applicant and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP for the State.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transaction between the parties constitutes money lending under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act or a simple sale of land.
Whether the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail given the evidence of documents indicating money lending.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Uma W/o Ramchandra @ Sanjay Pujari
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
SARANG V. KOTWAL
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court