✦ Bombay High Court · 17 Apr 2008

Santosh Bhaskar Derle v. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Application No. 3982 of 2007R Y GANOO3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Bail granted

i) Application for bail is granted

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. After having considered the record and the peculiar facts of the case, it is seen that the present applicant is facing suspension. There is hardly any chance that he would like to take risk of tampering the witneses. Considering the date of arrest and…

Judgment

Operative part

2.

After having considered the record and the peculiar facts of the case, it is seen that the present applicant is facing suspension. There is hardly any chance that he would like to take risk of tampering the witneses. Considering the date of arrest and the allegations levelled against him, I am inclined to release him on bail by putting him to terms and conditions and in particular not to enter village Chanderi where the parents of Kalpana are staying. The child born out of the wedlock of the present applicant and the deceased is residing with the parents of Kalpana. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mundargi in his course of arguments had made statement on instructions from his client that his client would not like to trouble the child by any means such a visiting him or taking him away from the custody of the grand parents. Needless to mention that if the applicant wants to have limited access, so far as the child is concerned, he may have to move the concerned Court to seek appropriate order, as the applicant cannot be totally kept away from his son. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to pass the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER i) Application for bail is granted. ii) It is hereby ordered that the applicant be released on bail in C.R.No.81 of 2007 of Niphad Police Station. It is hereby ordered that the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. The applicant shall execute P.R.Bond in the sum Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only). iii) The applicant shall not enter the limits of village Chanderi, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik till the case is over. iv) The applicant shall not meet his son Sachin without the permission of the Addl. Sessions Judge, before whom the case is pending. v) The applicant shall report to Niphad Police Station, on second and fourth Saturday of every month till the evidence of parents of Kalpana is over. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: i) Application for bail is granted

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304B.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 17 Apr 2008. The bench was R Y GANOO.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 3982 of 2007). ← Search more judgments