Disposed

Ashok Popat Fuke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jul 2021ABA/89/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three anticipatory bail applications as infructuous. The Sessions Officer reported no fraud but noted irregularities without recommending custodial interrogation, rendering the applications no longer warranted.

What did the court decide?

All three anticipatory bail applications were disposed of as infructuous; applicant in ABA No. 89 of 2019 permitted to withdraw security deposit.

Ashok Popat Fuke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Dusane

¶2

1/238 ABA 247, 89, 108.2019.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.247 OF 2019

¶5

....
Nitin Eknath GangodeApplicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.....
Respondents

¶6

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2019

¶7

....
Ashok Popat FukeApplicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra....
Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2019

¶10

Sharad Pundlik Kasar....
Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.....
Respondents

¶11

Mr. Piyush Toshnival for Applicant in ABA No. 247 of 2019.
Mr. Piyush Toshnival i/by Mr. Vishal Nimbalkar for Applicant in ABA No.
89 of 2019.

¶12

Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde for Applicant in ABA No. 108 of 2019
Ms. Pratibha D. Shelke for Respondent No. 2 in ABA No. 108 of 2019.

¶13

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for State.

¶14

Dusane2/238 ABA 247, 89, 108.2019.doc

¶15

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 14th JULY, 2021

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1.Ms. Kaushik, learned APP appearing for the State on

¶18

telephonic instructions from Mr. Sagar Ashok Nandre, PSI attached to
Surgana Police Station, Nasik Rural states that in an subsequent enquiry
carried out pursuant to the order of Divisional Commissioner, no fraud
was noticed, however, only certain irregularities are noticed on the part
of the Applicant-accused. According to her, since “B” Summary will be
submitted as instructed by the aforesaid officer, custodial interrogation
of the Applicant is not warranted.

¶19

2.In the wake of above statement, which is accepted by this
Court, all these Anticipatory Bail Applications stand disposed of as
infructuous.

¶20

3.In view of above order, the Applicant in ABA No. 89 of 2019
is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs (Rupees Twelve
Lakhs only), deposited by him.

¶21

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Ashok Popat Fuke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Popat Fuke 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

Chief Officer, Devrukhnagar Panchayat, Devrukh Vs Maruti Krishna Raut and Anr.

Peer Mohammed Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sou. Kanchan Rajesh Chavan Vs Shri. Rajesh Shivaji Chavan

Pratiksha Sameer Gaikwad @ Pratiksha Pramod Verulkar Vs Sameer Ramesh Gaikwad

Sharad Pundalik Kasar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manisha Maneesh Phatangare Vs Shri. Maneesh Nanbhau Phatangare