Allowed

Chandrakant Pandurang Chandanshiv v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jun 2024BA/753/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in an alleged illegal sex determination and termination of pregnancy case under IPC and PCPNDT provisions. Court held numerous phone calls alone insufficient at this stage, no antecedents or recoveries, investigation complete, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on PB and SB of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions: no contact with co-accused, cooperation with IO, attendance at trial on every date.

Chandrakant Pandurang Chandanshiv Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:10824

¶2

960-BA-753-24.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2024

¶6

CHANDRAKANT PANDURANG CHANDANSHIV

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajendra G. Hange APP for Respondent : Mr. D. J. Patil

¶10

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 14-06-2024

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

¶13

The applicant seeks bail in C.R.No.0009 of 2024 registered with Georai Police Station, Taluka Georai, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 312 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(A), 6(b), 6(c), 18, 23(1), 23(2) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

¶14

The applicant has a case that he had barely rented his house to co-accused Manisha Sanap. He had a written agreement. His house is far away from his house given on rent. Hence, he did not know about the so-called sex determination test. He has a case that he had no knowledge about activities done by co-accused

¶15

960-BA-753-24.odt

¶16

¶17

Manisha Sanap. Prosecution has evidence of large number of phone calls between the applicant and co-accused Manisha Sanap.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the respondents submits that the applicant was also the agent of the Doctor who was performing the illegal sex determination.

¶19

Admittedly, the applicant has no antecedents and nothing is recovered from him. Barely having a large number of phone calls may not be sufficient at this juncture to believe that the applicant was involved in the crime and was the agent for the Doctor performing the illegal termination of pregnancy. The investigation has been completed. Hence, the following order :-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

i) The application is allowed.

¶22

ii) Applicant Chandrakant Pandurang Chandanshiv be released on bail, on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.50,000/-, with one solvent surety of the like amount, in the above crime for the aforesaid offences, on the conditions that,

¶23

(a) He shall not contact co-accused Manisha Sanap or any other person involved in the crime.

¶24

(b) He shall co-operate Investigating Officer, if required.

¶25

¶26

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

¶27

rrd

Chandrakant Pandurang Chandanshiv v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Pandurang Chandanshiv v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Kishor Kailas Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra Rangnath Gangurde @ Babalu Bhujang Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Nivrutti Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Radhabai Ashru Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ramesh Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant Shivaji Wadikar Vs the State of Maharashtra