Allowed

Siddhant @ Appu Vilas Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Nov 2023ABA/2883/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay converted the interim anticipatory bail order dated October 16, 2023, into a regular bail order in favour of the applicant, citing that custodial interrogation was no longer warranted after 25 days from the alleged dacoity offense.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail order dated October 16, 2023, made absolute on original terms; applicant directed to regularly attend court proceedings.

Siddhant @ Appu Vilas Gangurde Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

49-aba-2883-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2883 OF 2023

¶4

Siddhant @ Appu Vilas Gangurde ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ajinkya Taskar i/b. Mr. Pratik Kalantri, for the Applicant Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP, for the Respondent/State. Mr. Mangesh Gole, for Respondent No. 2.

¶6

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2023

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

By an order dated 16^th October, 2023 this Court had granted

¶10

interim protection observing inter alia as under:-

¶11

4] Evidently the applicant was not named in the FIR. The named accused and 50 to 60 persons had allegedly committed dacoity. The name of the applicant was revealed in a supplementary statement which came to be recorded about 25 days of the alleged occurrence.

¶12

5] Having regard to the nature of the accusation, the number of persons involved therein and the time which has elapsed since the date of the alleged occurrence, at this distant point in time, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶13

The Court is informed that in terms of the aforesaid order the

¶14

applicant has appeared before the investigating officer and cooperated with the investigation.

Vishal Parekar

...1

49-aba-2883-2023.doc

Having regard to the nature of accusation, further custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted to facilitate further investigation. I am, therefore, impelled to make the order of interim bail absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶19

The order of interim bail dated 16^th October, 2023 is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶20

In addition, the applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶21

It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined

¶22

to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶23

Application disposed.

¶24

Vishal Parekar

¶25

...2

Siddhant @ Appu Vilas Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhant @ Appu Vilas Gangurde 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

Kamilhusain Musaddik Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Uday Jagannath Ghodke Vs State of Maharashtra

Jayashree Vijaykumar Joglekar Vs Chandrashekhar Sitaram Joglekar and Another

Seema Rajendra Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Govind Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Narendra Pratap Udaybhan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra