Partly allowed

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jul 2022APPLN/188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge modified a bail condition requiring the applicant not to enter Pune or Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation for two years, restricting it only to Khadak Police Station jurisdiction due to the acquittal in the single registered offence.

What did the court decide?

Condition modified to restrict entry only to the limits of Khadak Police Station, Pune for two years from 19.03.2022.

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 29.APPLN.188.22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2022

¶5

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar ….Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent

¶6

Ms Supriya Kak for the Applicant.
Mrs. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 8th JULY, 2022

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
APP for the State.

¶10

2.This application is preferred seeking modification of the
condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, MCOCA Court,
Pune, while releasing the applicant on bail in connection with C.R.
No.82 of 2021 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune City, for
the offences punishable u/s.120B, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149,
506(2), 109 and 507 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the
Penal Code”), Section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and
Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999.

¶11

3.The condition, of which the applicant seeks modification,
reads as under:-

¶12

 Aarti Palkar

¶13

¶14

 29.APPLN.188.22.doc

¶15

“3. The applicant is directed not to enter within the
jurisdiction of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation,
for the period of two years from the date of passing of this
order, except for attending the Court cases, without prior
permission of this Court.”

¶16

4.I have perused the order. It does not indicate any grounds
which weighed with the learned Special judge to impose the
condition not to enter the jurisdiction of Pune and Pimpri
Chinchwad Corporation, for the period of two years. The learned
Special Judge has observed that there was only one offence
registered against the applicant and he was acquitted therein. If
that is the position, the condition not to enter the jurisdiction of
Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation, for the period of two
years, appears onerous, and constitutes unjustifiable impingement
on the fundamental freedoms of the applicant.

¶17

5. I am thus inclined to modify the condition as under:-

¶18

The applicant - Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar shall
not enter the limits of Khadak Police Station, Pune for the
period of two years from 19.03.2022, without prior
permission of the learned Special Judge.

¶19

6. The application stands disposed.

¶20

 Aarti Palkar

¶21

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaraj @ Shakti Nilanjay Wadekar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Singh Rumnam Singh Bartawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raju @ Riyaj Gaus Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Baban Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Yadav Adagale Vs State of Maharashtra

Ashutosh Ananta Pingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Naresh Bidlan Vs the State of Maharashtra