{"id":136143,"date":"2009-10-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-12T10:03:30","modified_gmt":"2015-10-12T04:33:30","slug":"coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                  1    \n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3271 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                             \n             (Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra and another)\n                                      WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3272 OF 2009\n             (Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra and another)\n\nOffice Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \nappearances, Court's orders or directions                    Court's or Judge's Orders\nand Registrar's orders.\n\n                             CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                             DATE OF RESERVING :  08TH OCTOBER, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                             DATE OF PRONOUNCING : 09TH OCTOBER, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                          By Criminal Application No. 3271 of 2009, the
\n                             applicant prayed for grant of bail in Crime No. 495\/2006
\n                             reported at Gadege Nagar Police Station, Amravati under <\/p>\n
                             Sections 166, 167, 201, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) <\/p>\n
                             read with Sections 120(B)\/34 of the Indian Penal Code
\n                             further   read   with   Section   7,   13(i)(d)(i),(ii),(iii)   of   the
\n                             Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                          By Criminal Application No. 3272 of 2009, the
\n                             applicant prayed for grant of bail in Crime No. 262\/2006
\n                             reported at City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati under <\/p>\n
                             Sections 166, 167, 201, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A)
\n                             read with Sections 120(B)\/34 of the Indian Penal Code
\n                             further   read   with   Section   7,   13(i)(d)(i),(ii),(iii)   of   the
\n                             Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                          Heard Shri Majid Menon, the learned Counsel
\n                             for the applicant and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned APP for
\n                             respondent\/State.\n<\/p>\n
                                          The   learned   Counsel   for   the   applicant <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                           2    <\/span><\/p>\n
      submitted that the charge sheets have already been filed
\n      in   Special   Case   Nos.   5\/2009   and   6\/2009   in   respect   of
\n      accusations   as   mentioned.     He   further   submitted   that <\/p>\n
      the   trial   in   both   the   special   cases   would   require   long <\/p>\n
      time.     Therefore,   the   applicant   be   released   on   bail
\n      subject   to   conditions   that   the   applicant   is   ready   and
\n      willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed <\/p>\n
      by   this   Court.     It   is   also   contended   that   most   of   the
\n      evidence in the special cases is of documentary nature
\n      and   the   charge   sheets   have   already   been   filed.     The <\/p>\n
      applicant   would   be   in   a   better   position   to   defend   the <\/p>\n
      cases if he is released on bail.   On the other hand, if he
\n      remains behind the bars during pendency of trial, it may <\/p>\n
      amount to  pre  trial  punishment.    Learned   Counsel for
\n      the applicant also contended that general rule is bail and
\n      not jail and, therefore, the denial of bail by the learned <\/p>\n
      Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati to the applicant is <\/p>\n
      unjust   and   improper   by   order   dated   14.09.2009.     He
\n      made a reference to the rulings in the cases of Bhagirath
\n      Singh   .v.   State   of   Gujarat   (reported   in   (II)   1984(1) <\/p>\n
      Crimes, 334 (SC))  and  Fida Hussain Bohra .v. State of
\n      Maharashtra (reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 1229 (SC)).
\n      It is submitted that the charge sheets containing about <\/p>\n
      4500 pages have been submitted in the trial Court and
\n      there is no likelihood to tamper with such voluminous
\n      evidence.   Therefore, the applicant be released on bail
\n      with appropriate conditions.   It is further submitted on
\n      behalf   of   the   applicant   that   all   other   co-accused   have
\n      been granted benefit of bail.  Therefore, on the ground of
\n      parity also the applicant be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                           3    <\/span><\/p>\n
                  Shri D.B. Patel, the learned APP appearing on
\n      behalf   of   the   respondent\/State   vehemently   opposed
\n      grant of bail in favour of the applicant on the ground that <\/p>\n
      the   accusations   against   the   applicant   are   very   serious <\/p>\n
      particularly   under   Sections   409   and   467   of   the   Indian
\n      Penal Code, the offences are punishable to the extent of
\n      imprisonment   for   life.     If   the   applicant   is   released   on <\/p>\n
      bail,   he   is   an   influential   person   and   can   influence
\n      witnesses   and   frustrate   the   trial.     Learned   APP   also
\n      submitted   that   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
      Amravati,   rejected   the   pleas   for   bail   advanced   by   this <\/p>\n
      applicant after considering  the submissions along with
\n      the  rulings cited  and  also  rejected  the applications  for <\/p>\n
      bail filed by the applicant.   Regarding the merits of the
\n      bail   applications,   learned   APP   contended   that   the
\n      accusations   against   the   present   applicant   are   very <\/p>\n
      serious.  The material collected during the investigation <\/p>\n
      also prima facie indicates the involvement of the present
\n      applicant in both the cases reported in Amravati District
\n      at   City   Kotwali   and   Gadge   Nagar   Police   Stations, <\/p>\n
      Amravati.     Crores   of   rupees   belonging   to   the   State
\n      Government   were   misappropriated   as   reported   by
\n      Special   Auditor   in   2006   and   the   investigation   revealed <\/p>\n
      the   involvement   of   the   present   applicant   as   Chief
\n      Operator   of   various   bogus  bank   accounts   acting   along
\n      with his brothers and relatives.   Some of them are still
\n      absconding.     Various   bogus   companies   were   floated.
\n      Accounts were opened in the firms’ name, such, as M\/s.
\n      Sapna Enterprises, M\/s. Unique Traders etc.  Statements
\n      of   various   witnesses   from   the   bank   concerned   also <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                          4    <\/span><\/p>\n
      indicate the involvement of the applicant indicating as
\n      to how the applicant and his brothers had opened and
\n      operated  various  accounts  in  the bank  in  the name  of <\/p>\n
      various companies and fictitious persons.  The applicant <\/p>\n
      is facing accusation that he had on the basis of bogus
\n      documents,   submitted   various   bills   purportedly   from
\n      various   companies   in   respect   of   purchase   of   material <\/p>\n
      which   in   fact   were   not   supplied   but   obtained   bogus
\n      sanction orders in order to recover the money from the
\n      government and misappropriate it.   Thus, according to <\/p>\n
      learned APP, crores of rupees were siphoned off by the <\/p>\n
      present applicant in connivance with others.\n<\/p>\n
                  Regarding   the   contentions   as   to   parity,   the <\/p>\n
      learned   APP   submitted   that   the   seriousness   of   the
\n      accusations against the present applicant are such that
\n      he is kingpin and Chief Operator as well as mastermind <\/p>\n
      behind the economic crime by which crores  of rupees <\/p>\n
      belonging   to   State   Government   were   siphoned   off.
\n      Therefore,   he   cannot   claim   parity   in   respect   of   bail
\n      orders   granted   in   favour   of   other   co-accused   in   case, <\/p>\n
      particularly   when   some   of   his   associates   are   still
\n      absconding   and   further   investigation   as   contemplated
\n      under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure <\/p>\n
      is still going on.   In respect of enormous gravity of the
\n      crime,   the   learned   APP   also   submitted   that   it   is
\n      economic   crime   and   deliberately   executed   with   cool
\n      calculations.     Therefore,   merely   because   the   charge
\n      sheets   have   been   submitted   in   the   trial   Court   is   no
\n      ground to grant benefit of bail in favour of the present
\n      applicant.     More   particularly   when   the   applicant   was <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                          5    <\/span><\/p>\n
      involved   in   similar   crimes   and   appears   to   be   habitual
\n      offender.  According to the learned APP, the applicant is
\n      also facing identical accusations in Crime No. 98 of 2004 <\/p>\n
      reported   at   Sarkarwada   Police   at   Nasik,   in   Crime   No. <\/p>\n
      198\/2004   reported   at   Chandrapur   Police   Station,
\n      Chandrapur   and   in   Crime   No.   122\/2006   reported   at
\n      Murtizapur Police Station, District Akola, apart from his <\/p>\n
      prima   facie   involvement   in   the   present   economic
\n      crimes.\n<\/p>\n
                  It is no doubt true that ordinarily when charge <\/p>\n
      sheets have been filed in the cases, bail may be granted <\/p>\n
      on the basis of principle that it may amount to pre-trial
\n      punishment   if   accused   has   to   remain   behind   the   bars <\/p>\n
      pending   hearing   and   disposal   of   the   trial.     Normally,
\n      therefore, as a general rule, benefit of bail is granted in
\n      favour of the accused, but the Court cannot overlook or <\/p>\n
      disregard the nature of accusations against the accused <\/p>\n
      concerned.     Some   times   bail   is   granted   with   stringent
\n      conditions   in   order   to   meet   the   ends   of   justice   after
\n      investigation is complete and when the trial is pending.\n<\/p>\n
      In   the   present   case,   it   appears   from   the   submissions
\n      advanced   before   me   that   further   investigation   as
\n      contemplated   under   Section   173(8)   of   the   Code   of <\/p>\n
      Criminal Procedure in respect of accusations against the
\n      present applicant is still in progress.  Some of the alleged
\n      offenders are still absconding according to the learned
\n      APP.  Under these circumstances, considering the gravity
\n      and serious nature of accusations against the applicant
\n      as also  number of past criminal cases pending against
\n      him,   I   think   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                          6    <\/span><\/p>\n
      Amravati was well within his discretion to deny benefit
\n      of   bail   to   the   present   applicant,   considering   huge
\n      financial   scandal   of   wrongfully   gaining   quick   or   easy <\/p>\n
      money   worth   crores   of   rupees   from   the   government <\/p>\n
      exchequer.\n<\/p>\n
                  In   the   ruling  Fida   Hussain   Bohra   .v.   State   of
\n      Maharashtra   (cited   suppra),  it   does   appear   that   in   the <\/p>\n
      facts   and   circumstances   of   that   case,   the  order   by   the
\n      High   Court   cancelling   anticipatory   bail  granted   by   the
\n      learned Sessions Judge, was set aside by the Apex Court <\/p>\n
      directing   that   the   accused   may   be   interrogated   by <\/p>\n
      investigating   agency   at   any   time   suitable   for   the
\n      investigating officer either alone or with other accused <\/p>\n
      persons as per direction from the learned Sessions Judge
\n      concerned.  To my mind, the ruling given in the peculiar
\n      facts and circumstances of that case cannot come to the <\/p>\n
      rescue of the applicant in the present cases for claiming <\/p>\n
      benefit of bail.   The Apex Court in the case of  State of
\n      Gujarat   .v.   Mohanlal   Jitamalji   Porwal   and   another
\n      (reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321) has observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
             “The   entire   community   is   aggrieved   if   the
\n             economic offenders who ruin the economy of <\/p>\n
             the State are not brought to book.  A murder
\n             may   be   committed   in   the   heat   of   moment
\n             upon passions being aroused.   An economic
\n             offence  is committed   with  cool  calculations
\n             and   deliberate   design   with   an   eye   on
\n             personal   profit   regardless   of   the
\n             consequences to the community.  A disregard <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                          7    <\/span><\/p>\n
             for   the   interest   of   the   community   can   be
\n             manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the
\n             trust   and   faith   of   the   community   in   the <\/p>\n
             system   to   administer   justice   in   an   even <\/p>\n
             handed   manner   without   fear   of   criticism
\n             from   the   quarters   which   view   white   collar
\n             crimes   with   a   permissive   eye   unmindful   of <\/p>\n
             the   damage   done   to   the   National   economy
\n             and National interest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  The   above   observations   would   indicate   as   to <\/p>\n
      how economic offenders are treated as more dangerous
\n      than even murderers in the society.   The gullible poor <\/p>\n
      public always suffer when economic offences involving
\n      huge finances are committed against the State and the
\n      Society at large.  The potential of injury is to those poor <\/p>\n
      citizens who visit and suffer the most by going to public <\/p>\n
      hospitals   owned   by   government   with   minimum
\n      expectations   to   receive   medical   treatment   with
\n      reasonable   facilities   as   should   be   available   in   public <\/p>\n
      hospitals.     If   any   person   has   indulged   into   deliberate
\n      swindling of crores of public money to make quick and
\n      easy money with eye on personal profit, without in fact <\/p>\n
      supplying   the   necessities   to   the   hospitals   and   there
\n      appears   prima   facie   grounds   to   believe   into   the
\n      accusations levelled against him, such person cannot be
\n      enlarged on bail to be let loose on the society particularly
\n      when past criminal cases were reported against him and
\n      are still pending. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Considering the prima facie serious nature of <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                          8    <\/span><\/p>\n
      accusations as also the incriminating nature of material
\n      collected during the investigation,  prima facie one may
\n      believe   the   involvement   of   the   applicant\/accused   in <\/p>\n
      serious   economic   offences   amounting   to <\/p>\n
      misappropriation   of   crores   of   rupees   from   the
\n      government   money   as   also   criminal   breach   of   trust
\n      attracting penal provisions under Sections 409 and 467 <\/p>\n
      of the Indian Penal Code.   The legislature do prescribe
\n      heavy punishment to the extent of life imprisonment for
\n      the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 467 of <\/p>\n
      the   Indian   Penal   Code,   therefore,   I   think   unless   main <\/p>\n
      witnesses on behalf of the prosecution are examined in
\n      the trial Court in respect of both these cases benefit of <\/p>\n
      bail   cannot   be   extended   to   the   present   applicant
\n      irrespective of the ground of parity along with other co-
\n      accused   who   may   be   mostly   corrupt   or   negligent <\/p>\n
      government   officials   indicted   in   the   case.     If   the <\/p>\n
      applicant   is   released   on   bail   at   this   stage,   he   may
\n      abscond and it would be difficult to secure his presence
\n      at the time of trials in both the cases.  Furthermore it is <\/p>\n
      likely that he may use his influence to tamper with the
\n      evidence   of   witnesses   in   view   of   probability   of   long
\n      sentences   of   imprisonment,   in   such   cases   economic <\/p>\n
      offences are required to be proved in the larger interest
\n      of public, society and the State because real culprits shall
\n      be brought to justice.\n<\/p>\n
                  Bearing in mind these reasons and totality of
\n      circumstances, I think there is no need to give overmuch
\n      importance to personal freedom which is myopic when
\n      compared with larger interest of public, society and the <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span>
\n                           9    <\/span><\/p>\n
      State.   In view of the well reasoned order passed by the
\n      learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Amravati,   I   do   not
\n      propose   to   take   any   different   view   in   the   matter.     Of <\/p>\n
      course, when main witnesses are examined in the trial <\/p>\n
      Court,   the   applicant   shall   be   at   liberty   to   move   bail
\n      application afresh before the trial Court.  The trial Court
\n      is expected to hear the trials giving top priority and to <\/p>\n
      complete the hearings and decide the cases on merits as
\n      early   as   possible   without   being   influenced   by   above
\n      observations limited for the purpose of deciding the bail <\/p>\n
      applications.\n<\/p>\n
               ig For   all   these   reasons,   the   applications   are
\n      rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          JUDGE
\n      *rrg.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:12:36 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3271 OF 2009 (Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra .v. State of Maharashtra and another) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3272 OF 2009 (Fida Hussain Yahyabhai […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCoram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009"},"wordCount":2024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009","name":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T04:33:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coram-a-p-bhangale-vs-sections-166-on-9-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Coram : A.P. Bhangale vs Sections 166 on 9 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136143","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}