SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Prakash D. Naik, J
DATTATRAY PANDURANG KHANDEKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


COMMON ORDER :

1. These applications are preferred under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with First Information Reports (for short “FIR”) for the offences under Sections 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(c), 30(2)(a) and Sections 3, 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short “FSS Act”) and Sections 188, 272, 273, 328 Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. Since common issues are involved in all these applications, they were heard together and disposed off by common order.

3. The common grounds urged in these applications seeking anticipatory bail are as follows :

i) Except Section 328 of IPC all the other offences are bailable in nature.

ii) The offence under Section 328 of IPC is not attracted and applicable in the present cases.

iii) Custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary.

4. Learned Advocate in ABA No. 799 OF 2022 submitted that, the applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 579 of 2021 registered with Jodbhavi Police Station for offences under Sections 188, 272, 273, 328 of IPC and Section 59 of FSS Act. It is submitted that, the applicant was not found in possession of any article.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top