Allowed

Somnath Arun Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024ABA/1521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three anticipatory bail applications arising from the same FIR were allowed. The applicants' names were not mentioned when the FIR was registered but were subsequently added. Interim relief had been operating and there was nothing to show non-cooperation with the investigation, so the interim orders were confirmed and the applications allowed, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail orders confirmed; applicants released subject to conditions including monthly police station attendance till charge-sheet.

Somnath Arun Londhe vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

bipin prithiani

¶2

¶3

914-aba-1636.24 & ors.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1636 OF 2024

¶6

Akash Bhagwan Ghadge	…	Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1433 OF 2024

¶9

Mahesh Digambar Shinde	…	Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1521 OF 2024

¶12

Somnath Arun Londhe … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶13

******

¶14

Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate for the Applicant in ABA1636/2024. Mr. Sunil Pandey a/w Mr. Raju Mandal for Applicant in ABA/ 1521/2024 and ABA/1433/2024.

¶15

Mr. Bapu V. Holambe-Patil, APP for Respondent-State.

¶16

¶17

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 3^rd SEPTEMBER 2024

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

. In these three applications, arising out of the same FIR, by separate orders passed on different dates, interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants.

¶20

As per the instructions given to the learned counsel for the

¶21

bipin prithiani

¶22

¶23

914-aba-1636.24 & ors.doc

¶24

applicants, a specific statement is made that the applicants remained present before the Investigating Officer, as per the directions of this Court.

¶25

It has to be noted that the names of these applicants were not stated in the FIR when it was registered and their names were subsequently added. Considering the fact that interim relief has been operating in favour of the applicants and there is nothing to show that they did not cooperate with the investigation, coupled with the fact that their names were not mentioned in the FIR when it was registered, this Court is inclined to confirm the interim orders and allow the applications.

¶26

In view of the above, the interim orders passed in favour of the applicants are confirmed and the applications are allowed.

¶27

The applicants shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and they shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other person concerned with the case. They shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶28

It is further directed that the applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Monday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, till filing of charge-sheet.

¶29

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶30

BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2024.09.03 19:21:22+0530

Somnath Arun Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath Arun Londhe 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Ramesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Abdul Sarvar Husain Salmani vs State of Maharashtra

Saket Abhiraj Jha vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

State Bank of India vs Paramound Printpackaging Limited (Liquidator) and 2 Ors.

Nikhil Suresh Mane vs State of Maharashtra

Kacharu Govind Paitl vs the State of Maharashtra