Viru S.Kanoji (Bhandari) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The earlier exercise, by applications Nos.2270/2009, by Santosh Kadam and 2341/2009, by Viru Kanoji is rejected by order dt.21st July, 2009.
Judgment
Mr. R.D.Biradar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 9/10/2009 P.C.:-
Heard Mr.Biradar, Counsel for the applicant.
The earlier exercise, by applications Nos.2270/2009, by Santosh Kadam and 2341/2009, by Viru Kanoji is rejected by order dt.21st July, 2009.
On identical grounds present application is moved by total four applicants named in the FIR. 2
The repeated submissions of criminal antecedents of Ravi will not be a relevant factor for allowing bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The injury certificate projects the dismal state of the events as to how Ravi was brutally dealt with. It cannot be said that, based on political vendetta present prosecution launched. Consequently, discretion in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not exercised. Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) ... JUDGE agp/3406-09crapl
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Oct 2009. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
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.