ABA-1048.11 v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above, the interim order dated 23-12-2011 is confirmed with the modification that the FIR Number should read as "60" instead of "59" of 2011.
Judgment
Ms Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Applicant. Shri K.V. Saste, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 11, 2012 P.C: Leave to amend to correct the number of the FIR.
This is an application for anticipatory bail by a public servant who apprehends arrest in offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Anti-Corruption Bureau had laid a trap against the applicant which failed. In this context, it is not really clear why the applicant's being in custody is necessary for investigation. 2 ABA-1048.11
In view of the above, the interim order dated 23-12-2011 is confirmed with the modification that the FIR Number should read as "60" instead of "59" of 2011.
This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC
The application accordingly stands
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Jan 2012. The bench was R C CHAVAN.
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.