Bandu @ Suraj Sahebrao Sathe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The high court rejected statutory bail applications by appellants accused of dacoity and offenses under the MCOC Act. It held that since the public prosecutor applied for extension of time before the 90-day statutory limit expired, the right to default bail did not accrue.
What did the court decide?
Bail applications Nos. 1182/2021 and 1187/2021 rejected; Bail application No. 664/2021 dismissed.
What the court decided
ba1187.21.odt
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2021
Aniket Viju Kuchekar
Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent
Mr. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.M.Kagne, APP for respondent/State.
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1187 OF 2021
- Bandu @ Suraj Sahebrao Sathe 2. Akshay Govind Shirsath Applicants
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC when an application for extension of time under Section 21 MCOC Act is filed before the expiry of the statutory 90-day period.
Whether the indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues when the extension of time application remains pending and is subsequently disposed of by extension after the expiry of the initial 90-day peri
Whether a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC is maintainable to challenge the propriety or justification of the extension of time granted under Section 21 MCOC Act.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Aniket Viju Kuchekar
- applicant
Bandu @ Suraj Sahebrao Sathe
- applicant
Akshay Govind Shirsath
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court