{"id":144858,"date":"2008-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-20T11:26:02","modified_gmt":"2016-01-20T05:56:02","slug":"jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 423 OF 2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    1.Jitendra s\/o Maroti Deotare,\n      Aged About 24 years, Occ - Labour;\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    2.Madhukar s\/o Vitthal Patle,\n                            \n      Aged about 42 years, Occ - Service,\n\n    Both residents of Village Khat, Tahsil Mouda,\n                           \n    District - Nagpur.                                 ....PETITIONERS.\n\n                                   VERSUS\n           \n\n\n    The State of Maharashtra,\n        \n\n\n\n    through P.S.O. Mouda,\n    District - Nagpur.                                 ....RESPONDENT.\n\n\n\n\n\n                             ------------------------\n              Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for Petitioners.\n              Shri Y.B. Mandpe, A.P.P. for Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              ------------------------\n\n\n                         CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &\n                                  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          DATED : JULY 31, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGEMENT. (Per K.J. ROHEE, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.         Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of<\/p>\n
    parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         The petitioners were arrested on 13.04.2008 in connection<\/p>\n
    with Crime No. 73\/2008 under sections 302, 201 read with Section 34<\/p>\n
    of Indian Penal code alleged to have taken place on 10.04.2008. The<\/p>\n
    petitioners were produced before the concerned Magistrate on<\/p>\n
    14.04.2008. Initially the Magistrate granted P.C.R. till 19.04.2008.\n<\/p>\n
    From 19.04.2008 M.C.R. came to be extended from time to time. The<\/p>\n
    last application for M.C.R. was moved on 30.06.2008 praying for grant<\/p>\n
    of M.C.R. till 15.07.2008. However the Magistrate granted M.C.R. only<\/p>\n
    till 14.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         It is undisputed that 90 days expired on 13.07.2008, which<\/p>\n
    happened to be a Sunday. On the next day i.e. on Monday 14th July,<\/p>\n
    2008 the petitioners moved application under section 167[2] of the<\/p>\n
    Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in default of filing of the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
    charge sheet. The said application was filed by the petitioners at 11<\/p>\n
    a.m. The learned Magistrate directed the A.P.P. to give his say. The<\/p>\n
    endorsement made on the said application by the A.P.P. shows that he<\/p>\n
    received copy of the application at 2.30 p.m. and sought time to file<\/p>\n
    say. However, it seems that on the same day (though the date is<\/p>\n
    wrongly written as 14.08.2008), he filed say strongly opposing the<\/p>\n
    application.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        On the same day the learned Magistrate passed a detailed<\/p>\n
    order rejecting the application by observing that since the charge sheet<\/p>\n
    was filed on 14.07.2008 itself, it cannot be said that there was default<\/p>\n
    on the part of the prosecution to file charge sheet within 90 days so as<\/p>\n
    to entitle the petitioners to be released on bail under section 167[2] of<\/p>\n
    the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, Advocate for the petitioners<\/p>\n
    and Shri Y.B. Mandpe, A.P.P. for respondent \/ State. They have cited<\/p>\n
    the following cases.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
    1.        AIR 1957 SC 271
\n              ([H.H.Raja] Harinder Singh .vrs. S. Karnail Singh<\/p>\n
              and others)<\/p>\n
    2.        1985 Cri.L.J. 939
\n              (N.Sureya Reddy and another .vrs. State of Orissa).\n<\/p>\n
    3.        1986 (3) Crimes, 577<\/p>\n
              (Powell Nawawa Ogechi .vrs. The State
\n              (Delhi Administration)<\/p>\n
    4.        1999 (2) Mh.L.J. 555<\/p>\n
              (Ramesh Madhukar Thombre .vrs. State of Maharashtra)<\/p>\n
    5.<\/p>\n
              1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 631
\n              (Naresh @ Nana Baliram Sonwane .vrs.\n<\/p>\n
              State of Maharashtra)<\/p>\n
    6.        2001 Cri.L.J. 1832
\n              (Uday Mohanlal Acharya .vrs. State of Maharashtra)<\/p>\n
    7.        2005 All M.R. (Cri) 291
\n              (Mahaya Chaitya Ozare .vrs. State of Maharashtra)<\/p>\n
    8.        2006 All M.R. (Cri) 3110
\n              (Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashirkhan .vrs. State<\/p>\n
              of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        We have carefully gone through the above rulings.                 The<\/p>\n
    order of the learned Magistrate itself shows that the petitioners moved<\/p>\n
    application for bail on 14.07.2008 at 11 a.m., whereas the<\/p>\n
    investigating officer filed the charge sheet at 12.30 p.m. on the same<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    day. It is thus apparent that the right which accrued to the petitioners<\/p>\n
    to be released on bail in default in filing of charge sheet was exercised<\/p>\n
    by them at 11 a.m. when no charge sheet was filed. It was tried to be<\/p>\n
    urged by the learned A.P.P. that the investigation was already<\/p>\n
    completed and as such the petitioners are not entitled to be released<\/p>\n
    on bail for default.    However, we cannot forget that though the<\/p>\n
    investigation might have been completed, no charge sheet came to be<\/p>\n
    filed immediately on completion of the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        Infact in the case of Najamuddin .vrs. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    (supra), Division Bench of this Court held that it is the duty of the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate on expiry of 90 days to tell the accused or to inform the<\/p>\n
    accused about his right to be released for default in filing of the charge<\/p>\n
    sheet.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        It was urged by the learned A.P.P. that at the time when the<\/p>\n
    learned Magistrate decided the application, charge sheet was filed.\n<\/p>\n
    However, in our view the time which is crucial or material is not when<\/p>\n
    the Magistrate considers the application for bail and passes order, but<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
    what is important is the time when the application was filed and the<\/p>\n
    time when the charge sheet was filed. In the case of Najamuddin<\/p>\n
    (supra), this Court has held that the Magistrate has to pass orders<\/p>\n
    forthwith so as not to enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of<\/p>\n
    the legislature. It may be pointed out here that the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
    Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal (supra), in paragraph no.8 has<\/p>\n
    observed that an accused like the present petitioners must be held to<\/p>\n
    have availed of his right flowing from the legislative mandate, if he<\/p>\n
    files application after the expiry of stipulated period mentioning that<\/p>\n
    no challan or charge sheet has been filed and he is prepared to offer<\/p>\n
    bail that would be ordered. If it is found that, as a matter of fact that<\/p>\n
    no such challan was filed within the period prescribed from the date<\/p>\n
    of arrest, such applicant\/accused must be held to have exercised the<\/p>\n
    said right, even if, such application is posted for consideration or for<\/p>\n
    orders before the court after some time or even after the Magistrate<\/p>\n
    refuses the application erroneously and the accused moves the higher<\/p>\n
    forum for getting formal order of being released on bail in<\/p>\n
    enforcement of his indefeasible right. Filing of challan at subsequent<\/p>\n
    stage will not take away the right of the accused. The Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court has held that such an interpretation would sub-serve the<\/p>\n
    purpose and the object for which the provision in the shape of proviso<\/p>\n
    to sub-section [2] of section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code has been<\/p>\n
    made. Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is<\/p>\n
    one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation<\/p>\n
    of the same can be only in accordance with law and in conformity<\/p>\n
    with the provision thereof, as stipulated in Article 21 of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the<\/p>\n
    contentions of the learned A.P.P. that when the application of present<\/p>\n
    petitioners came up for consideration before the Magistrate, as the<\/p>\n
    charge sheet was already filed the application had become<\/p>\n
    infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        It is also necessary to point out here that reliance upon the<\/p>\n
    Division Bench judgment of Orissa        High Court in the case of N.\n<\/p>\n
    Sureya Reddy (supra), by the learned A.P.P. is equally misconceived.\n<\/p>\n
    In view of the comments upon the said judgment and on provisions of<\/p>\n
    Section 10 of the General Clauses Act by the Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
    Delhi High Court in judgment in the case of Powell Ogechi (supra), it<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
    is not necessary for us to delve more in this controversy. Suffice it to<\/p>\n
    mention that Section 167 [2] of Criminal Procedure Code does not bar<\/p>\n
    investigation after 60 or 90 days and also does not bar filing of charge<\/p>\n
    sheet\/ challan after 60\/90 days. Thus it does not prescribe any time<\/p>\n
    limit either for completion of investigation or for filing of charge sheet<\/p>\n
    and hence Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is not at all attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    The Delhi High Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in<\/p>\n
    the case of State of Maharashtra .vrs. Sharad Sarda (1983 [1] BCR<\/p>\n
    578 or 1983 [2] Cri. Law Cases 18). Various judgments cited before<\/p>\n
    us as also the plain language of Section 167[2] of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
    Code reveal that it puts embargo on the power of the Court to further<\/p>\n
    permit detention of any accused person after expiry of 60 days or 90<\/p>\n
    days if such accused is ready and willing to furnish bail. The provision<\/p>\n
    has been made to curtail the deprivation of liberty of an individual<\/p>\n
    who is presumed innocent at that stage. It, therefore, has got nothing<\/p>\n
    to do with the date on which the prosecution completes investigation<\/p>\n
    or files charge sheet.    The investigation can take place even on<\/p>\n
    holidays and detention of such accused person also continues on<\/p>\n
    holidays. Therefore, the argument that 60th day or 90th day was a<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
    public holiday and therefore, the prosecution could not file charge<\/p>\n
    sheet on that date and had filed the same immediately on the next<\/p>\n
    working day, has hardly got any relevance if the purpose of the said<\/p>\n
    provision is looked into. In any case in the present facts, the charge<\/p>\n
    sheet itself is dated 14.07.2008 and as such it is apparent that it could<\/p>\n
    not have been filed on 13.07.2008 which was the 90th day. It is not<\/p>\n
    the case of the prosecution that after expiry of 90th day it had made<\/p>\n
    the present petitioners aware of their indefeasible right and thereafter<\/p>\n
    it choose to file charge sheet on next working day. The contention of<\/p>\n
    learned A.P.P. that no investigation was carried out in the matter after<\/p>\n
    9.7.2008 is not borne out from record.        Therefore, the stance to<\/p>\n
    distinguish between the completion of investigation and filing of<\/p>\n
    charge sheet as to distinct and unrelated events need not be examined<\/p>\n
    in the present matter.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       It is also to be noted that on 30.06.2008 when J.M.F.C.\n<\/p>\n
    granted remand it was upto 14.07.2008 i.e. upto 91st day.                   The<\/p>\n
    prosecution has sought remand upto 15.07.2008 but then the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate granted it only upto 14.07.2008. It is apparent that when<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
    the period of 90 days was to expire on a public holiday, looking to the<\/p>\n
    mandate of the provisions the Magistrate ought to have granted<\/p>\n
    remand till the next working day available immediately before such<\/p>\n
    public holiday. 13.07.2008 was Sunday and 12.07.2008 was also a<\/p>\n
    holiday for Courts being second Saturday. In these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate ought to have granted remand only upto Friday i.e.<\/p>\n
    11.07.2008 or then, if he was inclined to grant it beyond 11.07.2008,<\/p>\n
    the Magistrate ought to have informed the present petitioners of their<\/p>\n
    right which accrues after expiry of 90th day.       Here the right had<\/p>\n
    already accrued on 13.07.2008 i.e. on Sunday itself and on the next<\/p>\n
    day the accused\/present petitioners were produced before the learned<\/p>\n
    Magistrate. The petitioners themselves have moved application at 11<\/p>\n
    a.m. on 91st day, as such the learned Magistrate was not justified in<\/p>\n
    rejecting the application for bail. The said order therefore, needs to be<\/p>\n
    quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order :-\n<\/p>\n
              Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.      The impugned order<\/p>\n
    dated 14.07.2008 is quashed and set aside.          The petitioners are<\/p>\n
    directed to be released on their executing P.R. in the sum of<\/p>\n
    Rs.25,000\/- each with one surety in the like amount.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    11.    Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
                     JUDGE                          JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Rgd.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                         \n                        \n             \n          \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:38:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 423 OF 2008. 1.Jitendra s\/o Maroti Deotare, Aged About 24 years, Occ – Labour; 2.Madhukar s\/o Vitthal Patle, Aged about 42 years, […]<\/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-144858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - 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\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-20T05:56:02+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T05:56:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1761,\"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\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T05:56:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - 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\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-20T05:56:02+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T05:56:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008"},"wordCount":1761,"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\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008","name":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T05:56:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jitendra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/144858","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=144858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}