Allowed

Ganesh Janardhan Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 Jul 2023ABA/405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused apprehending arrest for offences under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act. The Court observed that sufficiency of charge-sheet and lack of need for custodial interrogation warranted granting bail despite alleged suppression of facts.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application allowed on the same terms of the interim order dated 30.03.2023.

Ganesh Janardhan Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

 932.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

932 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2023

¶4

GANESH JANARDHAN KAKDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D.P. Palodkar
APP for Respondent – State : Mrs. G.L. Deshpande

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 4th JULY, 2023

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

. Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with

¶11

Crime No.269 of 2017 registered with Sillod Rural Police Station, Tal.
Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section

¶12

353, 379, 109 r.w. 34 of IPC and Section 130 and 177 of Motor
Vehicles Act.

¶13

2.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the alleged
motorcycle, which applicant was riding, was seized by the police and
it is also returned to him. Thus, according to him, no custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

¶14

1/3

¶15

 932.

¶16

3.Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that
applicant while filing the application before the Sessions Court has
suppressed the fact about the rejection of previous bail application
and on this ground itself, he is not entitled to seek any relief.

¶17

4.To this submission, it is clarified by learned counsel for
applicant that since the incident was occurred about 5 to 6 years
back, out of inadvertence the said fact about filing of the earlier bail
application was not mentioned and there was no intention on the part
of applicant to suppress the said fact.

¶18

5.Even accepting the contention of learned APP to be true
that there was a suppression of the fact before Sessions Court,
however the prosecution was unable to show as to for what purpose
custody of applicant is required. It is pertinent to note that the
offence in question has occurred in the year 2017, the first bail
application filed before the Sessions Court was entertained and
rejected in May-2017 and therefore there is reason to believe to the
justification given by learned counsel for the applicant that out of the
inadvertence the said fact was not mentioned after six years thereof.

¶19

2/3

¶20

 932.

¶21

6.Considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been

¶22

filed in the year 2018, this Court finds no reason for denying the
liberty to the applicant, hence the following order.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Application is allowed on same terms of the interim order dated 30.03.2023.

¶25

[ R. M. JOSHI ]
 JUDGE

¶26

GGP

¶27

3/3

Ganesh Janardhan Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Janardhan Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ankush Suryabhan Kshirsagar Vs Arjun Devidas Shelke

Janardhan Eknath Nikalaje Vs Sanjay Baburao Torne

Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Dagdu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikrushna Rajendra Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinath Gorakh Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashpak Munsi Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another