BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J
Dhondiram s/o Sopan Veer – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.