First informant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail in a rape case. Court noted a consensual three-year relationship between two adults, charge sheet already filed, and no material showing tampering or witness influence, so refused to entertain cancellation.
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.
2.appln130-24.doc
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.07.3120:20:56+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.130 of 2024
XYZ
To be served through Chendani Koliwada Kopari, Thane ...Applicant v/s.
Mr Virendra Pethe, i/b. Ujwala Sawant, for the Applicant. Mr MG Patil, APP, for Respondent No.1/ State. Mr Rohan Hogle, for Respondent No.2. PSI UG Surve, Kopri Police Station, is present.
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 29 July 2024
P.C. :
Heard Mr Virendra Pethe, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr MG Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/ State, and Mr Rohan Hogle, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 2
29 July 2024
Mamta Kale.
2.appln130-24.doc
5. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
Page 2 of 2
29 July 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 376, 377, 323, 504 and 506 IPC should be cancelled on grounds of offence gravity and risk of evidence tampering.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
XYZ
The State of Maharashtra
Rahim Salim Pinjari
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
