Amit Madhukar Bhogale vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1481

M. S. KARNIK
Amit Madhukar Bhogale – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Senior Advocate Raja Thakare a/w. Adv. Mahesh Mule, Adv. Nidhi Narwekar, Adv. Akash Kavade, Adv. Siddharth Jagushte, Adv. Kanishk Waghwase, Adv. Subhash Jha a/w. Adv. Siddharth Jha, Adv. Ritesh Kesarwani, Adv. Praveena Venkatraman, Adv. Mrunal Jadhav i/b. Law Global
For the Respondent: Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, a/w. Ms. Veera Shinde, ACP Chandrakant Jadhav, PI Niraj Ubale, PI Sudhir Jadhav

JUDGMENT:

1. These are the applications claiming entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).

2. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, I may at the very outset seek guidance from the decision in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272 wherein the object and scope of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively stated. Paragraph 36 thereunder reads thus:-

“36. In Natabar Parida and Ors. v. State of Orissa [1975] Crl. L.J. 1212 a two judge Bench, at the earliest considered, the scope of the proviso and held thus:

“…..[T]he command of the Legislature in proviso (a)

is that the accused person has got to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail and cannot be kept in detention beyond the period of 60 days even if the investigation may still be proceeding. In serious offences of criminal conspiracy-murders, dacoities, robberies by inter-state gangs or the like, it may not be possible for the police, in the circumstances as they do exist in the various parts of our country, to complete the investigation within the period of 60 days. Yet the intention of the Leg