Allowed

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2023ABA/41/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms an interim anticipatory bail order dated 9th February 2021 for Dharmesh Wadhwani and Vaibhav Ramesh Jadhav, stating no conditions were breached, before granting anticipatory bail in the upcoming filing of the fresh applications.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed order dated 9th February 2021 imposing conditions; disposed of anticipatory bail applications.

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

44-aba41-42-2021.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2021

¶5

Dharmesh Wadhwani … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2021

¶8

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV

¶9

Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESHJADHAV Date: 2023.07.0411:54:22 +0530

¶10

Darshan S. Nebhwani & Ors. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe for the applicant in both ABA. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the respondent No.1/State. Mr. Zaid Anwar Qureshi i/by Hulyalkar & Ms. Sana Raees Khan for the respondent No.2

¶12

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JULY 3, 2023

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 435 of 2019 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 457, 454, 380, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.

¶15

¶16

44-aba41-42-2021.doc

¶17

Initially, the applicant had filed Bail Application No.2843 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The Sessions Judge by order dated 7^th August 2019 allowed the bail application by imposing conditions.

¶18

The respondent No.2 filed an application before the Sessions Judge for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground of breach of conditions. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and cancelled the anticipatory bail application.

¶19

Challenging the said order, writ petition was filed before this Court. However, on the objection of maintainability being raised, the applicant has filed present anticipatory bail application.

¶20

This Court by order dated 9^th February 2021 protected the applicant by imposing conditions. No material is produced on record to indicate that the conditions imposed by interim order passed by this Court on 9^th February 2021 are breached. Therefore, order dated 9^th February 2021 is confirmed subject to same conditions.

¶21

The anticipatory bail applications stand disposed of.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Anil Zendphale Vs State of Maharashtra

Rahul Laxman Padmakar Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb @ Vaibhav Shantaram Kad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmesh Wadhwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Kisan Motewar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sadanand Vamam Wakurle Vs the State of Maharashtra