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

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J
Dhondiram s/o Sopan Veer – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Applicants: M.P. Gandle
For the Respondents: A.M. Phule

Table of Content
1. court evaluates necessity for physical custody in bail applications. (Para 1 , 3 , 5)
2. arguments presented regarding fir discrepancies and charges. (Para 2 , 4)

ORDER:-

1. Both these applications have been fled by original accused persons for getting bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.332 of 2020 registered with Beed (2) Rural Police Station, District Beed for the ofences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 149, 354, 324, 323, 327, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Gandle for the applicants and learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for the respondent-State.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that perusal of the FIR would show that it has been fled with malafde intention and in fact, the informant is alleging that present applicants themselves had created a scene that they have been assaulted. A non-cognizable ofence was fled by accused no.1 Anurath on 11.10.2020 at about 11.30 am against the husband of the informant in respect of the incident of the same day i.e. 11.10.2020. Now, the informant has fled FIR on 14.10.2020

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