Ghanshyam Kushawaha v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant sought bail in a case involving alleged use of forged visas to circumvent POE clearance. The court rejected the application, citing the serious nature of fraud against the government.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; custody of the applicant warranted for interrogation.
What the court decided
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.10.04 23:22:44 +0530
Chitra Sonawane.
902-aba-2714-2024(corrected).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.2714 of 2024
Ghanshyam Kushawaha Age 36 years, of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, Having address at Singasan Kushwaha, Golautha Golautha, Bardiha Dal, Rudrapur, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh – 274 204.
...Applicant
Vs.
- The State of Maharashtra (Inspector In-charge, Sahar Police Station Andheri -E), Mumbai to be served through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay.
- Vinod Ashok Pawar Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service, Having address at 70/8, Worli BDD Chawl, Baogoji Waghmare Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.
...Respondents
Mr Sunil Kumar a/w Mr Siddhant Singh i/b. M/s Kumar & Associates, for the Applicant.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application by the applicant in a case involving forged visas and cheating should be allowed.
Whether pre-arrest bail is appropriate given the serious nature of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ghanshyam Kushawaha
- respondent
State of Maharashtra
- respondent
Vinod Ashok Pawar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court