Allowed

Shrishail Shivanna Kalamani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2024ABA/1486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application concerning offences including Section 328 IPC and food-safety provisions; interim relief had been granted with directions to cooperate with investigation. The applicant complied, and the court confirmed the interim order and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 12.06.2024 confirmed; anticipatory bail allowed subject to cooperation and condition not to influence witnesses.

Shrishail Shivanna Kalamani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

15_ABA1486_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1486 OF 2024

¶4

Shrishail Shivanna Kalamani … Applicant Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Atharva R. Bhingardeve and Mr. Yash M. Naik i/b. Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2024

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. In this application, on 12.06.2024, this Court granted interim relief in favour of the applicant, with a specific direction to appear before the investigating officer on 24.06.2024 and 26.06.2024. The applicant was also directed to co-operate with the investigation.

¶11

This Court had recorded, in paragraph 4, the reasons for granting interim relief and the said paragraph reads as follows:-

¶12

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate:2024.09.0915:18:33 +0530

¶13

“4. It is further submitted that the question of invoking Section 328 of the IPC in such cases is pending consideration before the Supreme Court and in pending matters, the Supreme Court has granted interim protection to the accused persons. It is further pointed out that offences under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of the IPC are bailable, while the other offences are all under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The learned APP does not dispute the fact that the matters are indeed pending before the Supreme Court concerning Section 328 of the IPC, wherein interim protection has been granted in number of cases. In any case, co-accused persons have already been granted interim reliefs by this Court. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant interim relief to the applicant. The learned APP may file reply affidavit within three weeks from today.”

¶14

1/2

¶15

15_ABA1486_24.doc

¶16

The learned APP informs this Court that the applicant did appear before the investigating officer on the specified dates and that he has been co-operating with the investigation.

¶17

In view of the above, the interim order dated 12.06.2024 is confirmed and the application is allowed. The applicant shall co-operate with further proceeding before the competent Court and he shall not influence the witnesses or other persons concerned with the case.

¶18

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶19

Minal Parab

¶20

2/2

Shrishail Shivanna Kalamani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrishail Shivanna Kalamani v. the 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

Yogesh Vinay Badve Vs State of Maharashtra

Haiderali Sherali Ansari vs State of Maharashtra

Shrilingan Shimray Tokapor vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Sacchidanand Rainbow Kingdom Pvt. Ltd.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Social Restaurants Private Limited

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Sacchidanand Rainbow Kingdom Pvt. Ltd.