Vikrambhai Amirbhai Chawada v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 328, 341, 342, 395, 397, 412, 414
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 5
Judgment
Mr. S.V. Marwadi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2006 P.C. . This is an application for regular bail. The applicant along with 9 others is shown an an accused in C.R. No. 372 of 2004 registered by Satara City Police Station on the complaint of one Nathuji Thakur for offence under Sections 395, 397, 341, 342, 328, 412, 414 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act. It is admitted position of the present applicant that he was not involved in the dacoity. It is the prosecution case that two silver bricks valued Rs.46,000/- were recovered from him. APP states that 2 accused whose bail was refused, amongst the persons involved in the dacoity. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail and thus pending his trial in pursuance of C.R. No. I/372/2004, the applicant shall be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety from Maharashtra for the like amount subject to the condition that he should report to the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so in writing.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 328, 341, 342, 395, 397, 412, 414; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 5.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 26 Jun 2006. The bench was R S MOHITE.
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.