In a criminal application under Section 438 CrPC, the court rejected a petition to cancel pre-arrest bail granted to the accused. The court found no evidence of tampering or witness influence, noting the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, rendering the bail application unjustified.
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.
Mamta Kale
1-appln-124-2024.doc
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.07.2919:30:13+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 124 of 2024
ABC 40 years old, Occ. Home-maker, R/at. Rai Heritage, Flat No.C/703, Near Kamladevi College, Khadegolwadi, Kalyan East, Thane. ...Applicant Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Kolsewadi Police Station, Thane City.
Mr. Viraj Shelatkar, for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent – State.
Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date: 29 July 2024
P.C.
Page 1 of 2
Mamta Kale
1-appln-124-2024.doc
5. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
R. N. Laddha, J.
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail granted to the accused in a non-bailable offence under the IPC should be cancelled due to the informant's political influence and fear of evidence tampering.
Whether the conclusion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet justifies cancelling anticipatory bail at a stage where no evidence tampering has occurred.
Mamta Markale
The State of Maharashtra
Manoj Ramsakal Rai
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
