Disposed

Nilima Harish Parikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Mar 2024APPLN/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought deletion of a bail condition barring her from leaving Mumbai without court permission. After her co-accused son obtained identical relief from the Special Court, the application was withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to move the concerned Court afresh.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to applicant to approach the Sessions Court for deletion of condition No.10; that Court to decide within two weeks of first hearing.

Nilima Harish Parikh vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

912_APPLN10_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2024

¶4

Nilima Harish Parikh … Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kushal Mor i/b. Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar for Applicant. Mr. Bapu V. Holambe-Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶6

Ms. Priyanka Dubey a/w. Mr. Shirish Desai i/b. Hedgehog and Fox LLP for Respondent No.2

¶7

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. By this application, the applicant seeks modification of a particular condition i.e. condition No.10 imposed on the applicant when her bail application was allowed by order dated 06.04.2023. The said condition specified that the applicant would not leave the territorial limits of Mumbai without prior permission of the Court.

¶10

It is an admitted position that an application, seeking an identical relief, was filed by co-accused i.e. the son of the present applicant before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai i.e. the Special Court concerning offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By an order dated 15.06.2024, the application of the said co-accused person was partly allowed and the aforementioned condition was deleted.

¶11

In view of the said development, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present application, in order to approach the aforementioned Court to press the prayer for modification / deletion of condition No.10 imposed in the

¶12

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate: 2024.08.2917:20:45 +0530

1/2

912_APPLN10_24.doc

Minal Parab

order dated 06.04.2023 when the applicant was granted bail.

¶17

In view of the above, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to move the concerned Court with a fresh application for the relief that is sought in the present application.

¶18

The said Court is directed to decide the application that is proposed to be filed by the applicant, within two weeks of the first date of hearing of the said application.

¶19

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶20

2/2

Nilima Harish Parikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilima Harish Parikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adoline Eva Dsouza Vs Basil Alwyn Ronald D'Souza (Deceased)

Uma Suhel Chander Vs Hariharan Shrinivas Killimangalam Alias K. S. Hariharan (Deceased)

Nisha Purshottam Bhatnagar Vs Usha Vishan Bhatnagar (Deceased)

V Sai Subramanian vs Venkatraman Kandaswamy Iyer

V Sai Subramanian vs Venkatraman Kandaswamy Iyer

Usha Madhukar Patil vs Late Jayavantibai Alias Jaywanti Pundalik Patil Sinces Deceased