Allowed

Dashrth Machindra Kokare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Oct 2021ABA/851/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appellate Bail No. 851 of 2019, confirmed an interim order protecting the applicant from captivity by confirming his pre-arrest bail. The court observed that police custody is un必要性 for recovery as the alleged amount was received, and consequently dismissed the separate criminal application filed by the intervenor informant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail confirmed; Criminal Application No.567 of 2019 disposed of.

Dashrth Machindra Kokare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 41-ABA-851-2019.odt

¶2

Osk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 851 OF 2019

¶6

Dashrath Machindra Kokare… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO. 567 OF 2019 IN

¶8

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 851 OF 2019

¶9

Mahendra Manikchand Sundecha… Intervenor

¶10

In the matter between :-
Dashrath Machindra Kokare… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶11

Mr.Chirag Chanani a/w. Mr.Arjun Deo i/b. Dewani Associates for Applicant.
Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
Mr.Gautam Jain i/b. Mr.M.J. Bhatt for Intervenor in APPP/567/2019.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 20th October 2021.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. Advocate Mr.Gautam Jain appearing for Intervenor-first

¶15

informant submitted that, the statement made by the Applicant on 5th October

¶16

2021 is correct and the first informant has received entire amount as was

¶17

agreed by the Applicant. He further submitted that, the intervenor has no

¶18

1/2

¶19

Osk 41-ABA-851-2019.odt

¶20

further grievance against the Applicant in the present crime.

¶21

2.Record indicates that, the police are seeking custody of the
Applicant only for the recovery of alleged amount of Rs.2.5 crores mentioned
in the First Information Report.

¶22

As noted earlier, learned counsel appearing for Intervenor-first
informant on instructions submitted that, the informant has received the
entire amount as of today and has no further grievance against the Applicant.

¶23

3.Perusal of record further indicates that, the custodial
interrogation of the Applicant for further investigation of the present crime is
not necessary and the Applicant can be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Interim relief, granted by Order dated 8th April 2019, is hereby
confirmed.

¶25

Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed in aforesaid terms.

¶26

4. In view of disposal of Anticipatory Bail Application, Criminal

¶27

Application No.567 of 2019 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.

¶28

Digitally signed by OMKAR OMKAR SHIVAHAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN KUMBHAKARN Date: 2021.10.21 17:25:09 +0530

¶29

2/2

Dashrth Machindra Kokare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrth Machindra Kokare 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

Madhukar Bhaskar Meher Vs the Municipal Corprotation of Greater Mumbai

Madhukar Bhaskar Meher and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corprotation of Greater Mumbai

M/S. Radium Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Fab Fashions, Property Firm of Smt. Smita Modi

Gulab Raghunath Konde Thr. His Power of Attorney Holder Shri. Nana Gulab Konde Vs Sahebrao Raghunath Konde(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Shri. Kailas Sahebrao Konde and Ors.

Maharashtra State Co-Op. Marketing Federation Ltd. Bombay Vs Anandrao Haribhau Rabade

Shree Vithal Pandurang Mane Vs Shree Ramchandra Pandurang Mane (Decd. Thr. Lrs) Shree Mahadev Ramchandra Mane and Ors.