Mr. Yogesh Subash Nalawade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Yogesh Subash Nalawade. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Satuavrat Joshi i/b. Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for the Applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 22nd JUNE 2012. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant. He makes a statement that identical Application No. 114 of 2012 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad will be immediately withdrawn.
This statement is accepted.
The Accused/Applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No.122 of 2012 for an offence punishable under Section 277, 431, 436 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, Section 15 and 16 of the Environment 2 ABA 512.12.sxw (Protection) Act, 1986 and also for infraction of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Prima-facie, for the aforesaid crime, custodial interrogation of the accused is not imperative as the activities of excavation of a sand was under a valid permit and in the field or plot which was earmarked. The damage to the property of the villagers may be correct for which there was an investigation carried by the Tahasildar of the area. However, for that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the Accused/Applicant not desired. Hence, order :- (a) In the event of arrest of the Accused/Applicant, he shall be released on his furnishing PR bond and surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). (b) The Accused/Applicant shall attend the Investigator on every Thursday and Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. till 31st July 2012. 3 ABA 512.12.sxw ( c) If the Revenue Authority fix certain damages to the shoulder of the Accused/applicant and communicate so under a notice, the Accused / Applicant will appropriately deal with the same within the time frame. (d) The Accused/Applicant will not influence the witnesses or persuade them to desist from prosecuting his case.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Explosives Substances Act, 1908 — s. 3; Protection Act, 1986; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jun 2012. 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.