Pankaj Tarachand Bhavar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Jul 2008
- Bench
- V K TAHILRAMANI
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the accused persons and the complainant, hence, he has no objection to the anticipatory bail being granted to the applicant. [-2-] The complainant has also tendered affidavit to the above effect which is…
Judgment
... Mr.K.S.Patil Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 P.C.P.C. P.C.
Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.53 of 2008 of Chhavani Police Station, Malegaon. The said case is under Sections 418 and 420 r.w. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the accused persons and the complainant, hence, he has no objection to the anticipatory bail being granted to the applicant. [-2-] The complainant has also tendered affidavit to the above effect which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. In view of the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
In the event of arrest, the applicant-Pankaj Tarachand Bhavar be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant to report to Chhavani Police Station Malegaon as and when required.
Application disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Jul 2008. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.