Allowed

Rahul Shivaji Bhor v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024APEAL/950/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three connected criminal appeals, the High Court made an earlier order granting bail in the event of arrest absolute. The investigation was completed without filing a charge-sheet against the appellants, and the State indicated custodial interrogation was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28th August 2023 directing release on bail was made absolute.

Rahul Shivaji Bhor Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2024.04.10 16:11:09 +0530

¶2

1/2 3 apeal 949.23.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2023

¶4

... Shivaji Laxman Bhor Appellant v/s.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondents

¶6

With

¶7

Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2023

¶8

... Rahul Shivaji Bhor Appellant v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondents

¶9

With

¶10

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2023

¶11

Dnyaneshwar Mahendra Bhor

¶12

... Appellant

¶13

v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. … Respondents

¶14

Mrs. Manisha Devkar for respondent No.2 in all appeals.

¶15

Smt. Mahalaxmi Ganpati, APP for the State. PSI Jitendra Keshar Mali, Nashik Road Police Station present.

¶16

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶17

 DATE : 4th April 2024

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

By order dated 28^th August 2023, the three appellants in 3 distinct appeals were directed to be released on bail in the event of

¶20

 2/2 3 apeal 949.23.docx

¶21

their arrest on furnishing PR Bond.

¶22

The aforesaid order was passed since the main accused Ratnakar Bhor was conferred with pre-arrest protection. It is recorded that the complaint and the supplementary statement has levelled allegations against Ratnakar Bhor and only accusation against the present appellants is their presence with Ratnakar Bhor.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Complainant and the learned APP for the State. The learned APP, on instructions, states that investigation in the subject CR is complete though the charge-sheet has not been filed against the three appellants. She makes a statement that custodial interrogation is not warranted as investigation is completed.

¶24

In the wake of such statement, the order dated 28^th August 2023 is made absolute.

¶25

Mrs.Manisha Devkar who is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel shall be paid her remuneration within a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶26

The Court would like to place on record its appreciation to Mrs. Devkar, for her able assistance.

¶27

(SMT BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶28

Lata Panjwani, P.S.

Rahul Shivaji Bhor v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Shivaji Bhor v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Rishabh P Siroya and 2 Ors. Vs Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Nishant Ashok Gunjal @ Gotya Vs State of Maharashtra

Ms. Sukoon Manekia Sethi Dir. of Merint Industrial Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Project Engineer (Sk),Government of India and Ors.

Shivaji Laxman Bhor Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amir Niyaz Khan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Mahendra Bhor Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.