Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Nilesh @ Banti Suklal Karosiya (C-06) Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

Home
Bombay HC
2022
Nilesh @ Banti Suklal Karosiya (C-06) Vs the State oNilesh @ Banti Suklal Karosiya (C-06) v. the State of Mahara

Allowed

Nilesh @ Banti Suklal Karosiya (C-06) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Oct 2022WP/932/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a premature release request. Relying on a connected case, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration within six weeks by applying category 4(c) of the relevant bail guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration within six weeks under category 4(c) of guidelines dated 15-03-2010.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration within six weeks under category 4(c) of guidelines dated 15-03-2010.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release under category 4(c) of the guidelines dated 15-03-2010.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for premature release. Reliance was placed on a connected bench decision. The matter has been remitted within six weeks for the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim under category 4(c) of the guidelines dated 15-03-2010.

A compact analysis

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.

A

1 CRI. WP / 932 /2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

954 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.932 OF 2022

NILESH @ BANTI SUKLAL KAROSIYA (C-06) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Gunjal Bharati B. APP for the respondent – State : Mr. S.J. Salgare

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2022

PC :

Heard both sides.

The request of the petitioner for premature release has been turned down by the impugned order dated 06-08-2018.

Referring to the decision of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Naresh S/o Suklal Karosiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) (Criminal Writ Petition no. 40 of 2020) dated 25 February 2020, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as was directed in that matter, even present petitioner’s claim would fall under category 4(c) of the guidelines dated 15 March 2010.

2 CRI. WP / 932 /2022

The learned APP by referring to the FIR and particularly, paragraph no. 11, would submit that the State is obeying the order of the Nagpur Bench (supra) and considering the case of the present petitioner under category 4(c).

In view of such a stand being taken, we allow the writ petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the petitioner’s request for premature release by considering his case as one falling under category 4(c) of the guidelines dated 15-03-2010 within six weeks.

6. Writ petition is disposed of.

[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

arp/

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release under category 4(c) of the guidelines dated 15-03-2010.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Naresh S/o Suklal Karosiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶10
Naresh S/o Suklal Karosiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and another

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
NILESH @ BANTI SUKLAL KAROSIYA (C-06)
respondent
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Coram

AI extract

MANGESH S. PATIL
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 14 Oct 2022 · October
Registered: 6 Jul 2022
Case no.: WP/932/2022
CNR: HCBM030236362022
Topic: Bail and Remand
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil Sandipkumar C. More
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Mangesh S. Patil Sandipkumar C. More

Mohd. Ismail Noor Mohd. Madna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another
14 Oct 2022
Sunil Rajaram Manndavkar (C-5245) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others
14 Oct 2022
Vivek Buddhinath Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others
14 Oct 2022

Cite this judgement

Nilesh @ Banti Suklal Karosiya (C-06) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others, WP/932/2022 (BOM), decided on 14 October 2022.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Naresh S/o Suklal Karosiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶10

Open Authorities

Bench / Coram

MANGESH S. PATIL and SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE

Parties & counsel