This single-judge bench allowed an anticipatory bail application. The court held that mere presence at the crime spot does not imply participation and that the applicant should not be denied bail solely due to antecedents.
Application allowed in terms of interim protection of liberty.
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.
924ABA376.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.376 OF 2023
AKSHAY S/O. YOGESH @ YAHUBA AUTADE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jagtap Adinath B. APP for Respondents : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th June, 2023
PER COURT :
1/3
924ABA376.2023
arrest. In the police report, it is claimed that on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused, police is likely to array him as accused in the present case.
2/3
924ABA376.2023
under Section 376 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to deny anticipatory bail of the present applicant on that ground.
[ R.M. JOSHI, J. ]
SPChauhan
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit person for anticipatory bail given his presence at the spot during the incident.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal antecedents warrant denial of anticipatory bail.
Akshay S/O. Yogesh @ Yahuba Autade
The State of Maharashtra
Another
R.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
