The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The court noted the applicant's criminal antecedents and found his specific role in the assault was significant, denying parity sought from co-accused.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.
502_ABA_1606_24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1606 OF 2024
Linga Prabhakar Shendage … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. M. A. Choudhari a/w. Mr. Ranveer Choudhari and Ms. Trisha Choudhari for applicant.
Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for respondent-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 21st JUNE, 2024
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
PRIYAKAMBLI Digitallysigned byPRIYA KAMBLIDate:2024.06.2118:39:08+0530
1/2
502_ABA_1606_24.doc
on the back of the victim and not on any major part of the body. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and that accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, have been enlarged on regular bail, while the accused No.4 was granted anticipatory bail.
(MANISH PITALE, J)
2/2
Priya Kambli
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant who apprehends arrest for offences including assault and having criminal antecedents.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Linga Prabhakar Shendage
The State of Maharashtra
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
