Ajay v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 392
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 s. 21(4)
Judgment
.................... Mr. Siddharth Gharat, Advocate holding for Mr. Nitin H. Sejpal for Applicant. Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2025. P.C.:
Mentioned at the time of rising of the Court. Heard Mr. Gharat, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for Respondent – State.
This is an Application under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R.No.255 of 2018 registered with Agripada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
In the present case, Applicant is incarcerated for more than 6 years. 1 of 2
Mr. Gharat, learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that trial has already commenced and underway. He would infact submit that 27 out of 41 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
Considering the long incarceration of the Applicant, learned APP is directed to take appropriate instructions and inform the Court about the conduct and status of the trial.
List the Bail Application on Board on 28th February 2025 at 02:30 p.m. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE 2 of 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 392; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 21(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Feb 2025. The bench was MILIND N JADHAV.
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.