Santosh Ashruba Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Two applications for anticipatory bail were rejected. The High Court held that given the applicants' alleged absconding and active involvement in offences against a minor, they did not deserve temporary relief or leniency to surrender.
What did the court decide?
Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed in the threshold itself.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2022
SANTOSH ASHRUBA JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. M.P. Gandle, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for the respondent No.1
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2022
KRISHNA DNYANESHWAR JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr. M.P. Gandle, Advocate for the applicant
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicants accused of helping in kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor girl while absconding.
Whether the applicants deserve leniency to surrender before authorities given their alleged absconding.
Whether protection can be given to applicants who are absconding in the circumstances outlined in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Santosh Ashrubha Jadhav
- petitioner
Krishna Dnyaneshwar Jadhav
- respondent
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