Applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR. The prosecution stated they were now treated as witnesses, not accused, so the apprehension of arrest no longer existed and the applicants did not press the application.
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.
bipin prithiani
1
30-aba-1421.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1421 OF 2024
… 2. Pradeep Lalchand Mankani Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Ms. Asha Kanzariya i/by Vijay Upadhyay for the Applicants. Mr. Bapu V. Holambe-Patil, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2024
P.C. :
. The record shows that on 17th May 2024, the learned APP appearing on the said date, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, had submitted that the applicants would not be arrested till the next date, so long as they cooperated with the investigation. Accordingly, the applicants were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on two specific dates in May 2024 and to cooperate with the investigation.
BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2024.10.07 18:38:12+0530
bipin prithiani
2
30-aba-1421.24.doc
MANISH PITALE, J.
Vashumal Lalchand Mankani
Pradeep Lalchand Mankani
The State of Maharashtra
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
