This crisp order rejected an application seeking interference with a lower court's order granting anticipatory bail. The High Court found no reason to disturb the Sessions Court's reasoning after investigation was completed.
Criminal Application rejected without any relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 3 27.APPLN.538.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2018
Dhanashri Nandkumar Mandale Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Adv.Rui Danawala i/by Adv.Umesh Mankapure for applicant. Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP, for State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 1st September 2021
PC :
MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESH SURESH THATTE THATTE Date: 2021.09.0214:08:52 +0530
2 of 3 27.APPLN.538.2018.doc
complaint was lodged by her with the concerned police station. The applicant has also filed an affidavit which has been annexed to this application stating that she was intimidated by the accused to withdraw complaint filed by her. The NC was lodged by applicant under Sections 506, 34 of IPC on 17th August 2018. Learned Sessions Judge has committed error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail, police have filed charge sheet in the concerned Court and the proceedings are pending before Trial Court.
3 of 3 27.APPLN.538.2018.doc
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the Sessions Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
Dhanashri Nandkumar Mandale
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
