Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. KARNIK, J
AMIT MADHUKAR BHOGALE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applications for default bail under cr.p.c. (Para 1) |
| 2. supreme court's interpretation of section 167(2) cr.p.c. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. factual summary of the murder case and charge-sheet timings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court conclusion on entitlement to bail. (Para 6 , 26 , 30) |
| 5. arguments for default bail based on delay under mcoca. (Para 7) |
| 6. counterarguments from the prosecution regarding custody under mcoca. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 18 , 20) |
| 7. court's extended analysis on the nature of investigations. (Para 9) |
| 8. legal interpretations impacting the right to bail. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29) |
| 9. final rejection of bail applications. (Para 31) |
ORAL 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. Stat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
