Applicant sought revocation of bail granted to respondent No.2 in an FIR involving sexual offence charges. The court found no interference with evidence or witnesses, no misuse of bail, charge sheet filed and trial commenced, and rejected the cancellation application.
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
26-appln-148-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 148 of 2023
Megha Sharad Khapne Age 26 years, Occ. Business, R/at. Majgaon Shindewadi, Taluka – Panhala, District Kolhapur. ..Applicant Vs.
Mr. Pradeep Yadav a/w. Mr. Saumitra Salunke, Ms. Swapnali Chavan, for the Applicant.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent – State.
MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.09.1918:57:23+0530
Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 18 September 2024
P.C.
. Heard Mr. Pradeep Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Ms. Supriya Kak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent / State.
page 1 of 3
Mamta Kale
26-appln-148-2023.doc
granted to respondent No.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur had granted bail to the accused / respondent No.2 on 22 June 2023, in connection with C.R. No.77 of 2023 registered with Kolhapur Police Station, Maharashtra, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376, 354(A)(1)(i), 354(A)(ii), 354(D)(i)(ii), 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the grievance of the applicant that the learned Judge failed to consider the merits of the matter.
1 (2001) 6 SCC 338
2 (1995) 1 SCC 349
page 2 of 3
Mamta Kale
26-appln-148-2023.doc
attempted to influence the witnesses. Furthermore, the records do not show any misuse of the bail concession by the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has appropriately avoided assessing the merits or demerits of the matter and has succinctly summarised the evidence on record. Since the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed, the trial has commenced, and no new circumstances have arisen to warrant revocation, this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.
R. N. LADDHA, J.
page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Should the bail granted to respondent No.2 for IPC offences be revoked on the applicant's grievance that the trial court did not consider merits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Puran Vs. RambilasRelied on¶3
(2001) 6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
Dolat Ram Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶3
(1995) 1 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Megha Sharad Khapne
The State of Maharashtra (Vide Panhala Police Station, Kolhapur)
Yogesh Tukaram Mane
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
