Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S SAMPAT TABAJI GANGURDE, decided on Sunday, December 31, 1978.
[ In the High Court of Bombay, Criminal Application No.1666 of 1977. ] 31/12/1978
Judge(s) : DESHPANDA & KOTWAL
Advocate(s) : N.M. Gunjalkar, P.P. Hudlikar, R.D. Hattangadi.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1979 (2) MAH.L.R 267"  







    Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 -     (1) THIS is an application by the state of Maharashtra for cancellation of the bail of the four accused who were released on bail by this Court on 9-6-1977. When their appeal against conviction for offences under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was admitted. It will not be proper to express any opinion about the merits of the case. This much however is clear that the deceased happens to be real brother of the wife of accused No. 1s brother and because of the quarrels between them some incident took place in the family which apparently appears to have provoked the accused to do certain acts which are the subject-matter of the criminal Appeal No. 445 of 1977. The second accused is the son of the first accused while the third accused is his wife and the fourth accused is his daughter thus the entire family has been hauled up in this criminal case. This application for cancellantion of the bail is now moved by the Public Prosecutor on the instructions of the local P. S. I. It is however not in dispute that the P. S. I. was moved by the original complainant himself who happens to be no other person than the real brother of accused No. 1. Reference is also made in the affidavit by the P. S. I to the application by certain villagers expressing some apprehensions against the accused and allegations are also made against the bootlegging activities of the accused. Reference is also made to two other cases one under the Prohibition Act and the other for offence under section 324 I P C. against another son of accused No. 1. Mr. Hattangadi the learned advocate appearing for the accused made a statement at the Bar that accused no. 1 also has filed an affidavit denying me allegations made against him in the affidavit of the P. S. I. and also explaining the situation though the affidavit is not to-day traceable. We do not think it proper to express any opinion about these allegations and counter allegations. Suffic it to observe that no case for cancellation of the bail is made out In fact there are no allegations particularly against the wife and the daughter of accused No. 1. If in fact the accused or any one of them is committing offence since their release on bail it is open for the P. S. I. to take appropriate actions against them under the law of the land. Cancellation of the bail is not justified merely because the complainant feels certain apprehensions against the accused or the members of his family. The application is rejected and the rule discharged. It will however be open for the prosecution to move afresh if any concrete cases arise against any one of the accused.