{"id":259463,"date":"2008-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-18T17:31:19","modified_gmt":"2018-10-18T12:01:19","slug":"anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Bilal Nazki, A.A. Kumbhakoni<\/div>\n
                                       1\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2008\n\n                                                             DIST.: MUMBAI\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Anuj Bajaj,                                         ]       ...Petitioner\n    Age 28 years, A-112, Derawala Nagar,                ]      (Brother of the\n    Opposite Model Town, New Delhi 110 009              ]           detenu)\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n               Versus\n                        \n    1. The State of Maharashtra                         ]\n    through the Additional Chief Secretary to           ]\n                       \n    the Government of Maharashtra,                      ]\n    Home Department (Special), Mantralaya,              ]\n    Mumbai 400032                                       ]\n       \n\n    2. Ms. Anna Dani,                                   ]\n    the Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security),       ]\n    \n\n\n\n    Government of Maharashtra, Home Department,         ]\n    Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032                           ]\n\n    3. The Superintendent of Prison,                    ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik Road,                            ]\n    Maharashtra.                                        ]        ...Respondents.\n\n\n    Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari with Ms. Nasreen Ayubi for the Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, with Mrs. S.D. Shinde,\n    Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents.\n\n\n                                    CORAM:  B ILAL NAZKI\n                                                           and\n                                               A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008
\n    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):-\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
              This petition has been filed by the brother of Shri Amit Bajaj,<\/p>\n
    who has been detained by an order dated 11th February, 2008 passed<\/p>\n
    by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of the Conservation of<\/p>\n
    Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act<\/a>, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
    The Grounds of Detention were served on the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
    2.<\/p>\n
              We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well<\/p>\n
    as the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        The attack on the detention by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    petitioner is on three grounds: that there was delay in passing the Order<\/p>\n
    of Detention;    secondly, it was contended that there was a vital<\/p>\n
    document (Nil Panchanama), which was not considered by the<\/p>\n
    Detaining Authority while passing the Order of Detention; and the third<\/p>\n
    ground was that it was a case of total non-application of mind by the<\/p>\n
    Detaining Authority.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        Before going to these grounds of attack, we would quote from<\/p>\n
    the Grounds of Detention the brief history, as given by the Detaining<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span>
\n    Authority about this case:-\n<\/p>\n
               “2. Pursuant to an intelligence gathered by the officers of the
\n               Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai that goods
\n               imported  at   Nhava   Sheva   port  by  certain   Delhi  based  firms,<\/p>\n
               which are cleared without payment of Customs duty, by filing
\n               Bills of Entry for Warehousing, are being diverted and sold in
\n               the market, instead of being taken to the bonded warehouses
\n               stated to be located in Haryana (Kundli, Rohtak, Faridabad,<\/p>\n
               etc.) for the purpose of storing.  As a consequence, Government
\n               was   losing   huge   amount   of   Customs   duty   on   such   illegal<\/p>\n
               diversion   and   sale.     It   was   also   gathered   that   the   import
\n               consignments   comprising   of   Copper   Scrap,   Brass   Scrap,   Zinc
\n               Ingots, Tin Sheets, Chemicals, Dry Fruits, Betel Nut, Gambier,<\/p>\n
               Tiles, etc. were being imported and cleared in the name of some
\n               Delhi   based  firms   like   M\/s.   Ankush   Trading  Co.,  M\/s.  Kajal
\n               Creations   Inc.,   M\/s.   Span   International,   M\/s.   Perfect   Impex,
\n               M\/s.   Ranbakura   Brothers,   M\/s.   Muskan   Enterprises   and<\/p>\n
               M\/s. X-cellent Exim Overseas etc. and were being diverted in a
\n               clandestine manner, as aforesaid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3. Based on the above intelligence, discrete enquiries were made
\n               through   the   concerned   Central   Excise   Commissionerate   for<\/p>\n
               verification of existence of bonded warehouses in the names of
\n               the above-mentioned firms.   It was reported by the concerned
\n               Central Excise authority that no bonded warehouse in the name
\n               of above said firms were in existence at the addresses provided.
\n               Further, photocopies of ‘     Re-warehousing Certificates’          certifying<\/p>\n
               receipt and storage of the goods imported in the names of the
\n               above said firms at the declared bonded warehouse, were sent
\n               to   the   jurisdictional   Central   Excise   authorities,   for   verifying
\n               genuineness   of   the   same.     It   was   reported   by   the   concerned
\n               Central Excise authorities that the proper officer has issued no
\n               such Certificates.   The said ‘     Re-warehousing Certificates’         were
\n               being  submitted  to the  authorities in Bond Section  of JNCH,
\n               Nhava   Sheva   for   getting   the   Bonds   cancelled   and   release   of
\n               supporting Bank Guarantees, which were furnished at the time<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  4<\/span>
\n                of   filing   of   the   Bills   of   entry   for   Warehousing.     It   was   also<\/p>\n
                confirmed   that   no   Ex-Bond   Bills   of   Entry   were   filed   for
\n                clearance of the imported goods, in the names of the above said<\/p>\n
                firms.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                4.   Based   on   the   above   inputs,   simultaneous   actions   were
\n                initiated  at  Mumbai  and  Delhi  on  29\/03\/2006.   As per  the<\/p>\n
                intelligence   developed,   the   import   consignments   were   cleared
\n                from   Nhava   Sheva   Port   by   CHAs   M\/s.   P.H.   Mehta   &   Co.,
\n                M\/s.   D.M.   Mehta   &   Bros.,   M\/s.   C.P.   Mota   &Co.,   and   were
\n                transported by M\/s. Ambalal Bombay  Roadways (ABR) from<\/p>\n
                the   port   to   various   upcountry   destinations.     Accordingly   on
\n                29\/03\/06 import documents pertaining to the aforesaid firms<\/p>\n
                were also taken over from the concerned CHAs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In this background, ultimately, an Order of Detention was passed<\/p>\n
    against several persons, including the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Detaining Authority. In<\/p>\n
    the first instance, we will go to the third ground of attack that it was a<\/p>\n
    case of total non-application of mind. Internal page 27 of the counter-\n<\/p>\n
    affidavit of the Detaining Authority stated that the detenu was involved in<\/p>\n
    prejudicial activities. It further said as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “The Sponsoring Authority prepared the proposal of 13 persons
\n                and   forwarded   it   to   the   Screening   Committee   and   after
\n                approval of the Screening Committee, the sponsoring authority
\n                forwarded the proposal of the detenu alongwith 12 persons to<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span>
\n               me, which was received in the office on 14.12.2006 and was<\/p>\n
               assigned to the Assistant.  The said proposal was running into
\n               about   7419  pages.    Thereafter,   the  concerned  Assistant  after<\/p>\n
               carefully going through the papers, prepared a scrutiny note on
\n               3.1.2007 and forwarded it to the Under Secretary. The Under
\n               Secretary   who   gave   his   endorsement   on   the   same   day   and
\n               forwarded the same to the then Detaining Authority.  The then<\/p>\n
               Detaining   Authority   endorsed   it   on   17.1.2007   and   thereby
\n               directed to call IO for discussion.   Accordingly, the sponsoring
\n               authority was communicated on 23.1.2007.  The Investigating
\n               Officer attended the office of the then Detaining Authority on<\/p>\n
               12.2.2007 and after discussion, the  then  detaining authority
\n               directed   him   to   submit   the   report.   It   is   submitted   that<\/p>\n
               accordingly the then Detaining Authority returned the file to
\n               the   Desk   on   13.2.2007.     During   the   said   period   there   were
\n               holidays   on   21.1.2007,   26.1.2007,   27.1.2007,   28.1.2007,<\/p>\n
               30.1.2007,   4.2.2007,   10.2.2007   and   on   11.2.2007.     The
\n               present   proposal   was   accompanied   by   12   other   proposals.
\n               In the meantime the then Detaining Authority was transferred
\n               to another department and I assumed the charge of the office of<\/p>\n
               the  Detaining Authority.    Thereafter,  the  concerned Assistant<\/p>\n
               again prepared a detailed  note on 11.4.2007 and forwarded
\n               the same to the Under Secretary who gave his endorsement on
\n               11.4.2007,   and   forwarded   the   said   proposal   to   the   Deputy
\n               Secretary,   who   gave   his   endorsement   on   20.4.2007.     It   is<\/p>\n
               submitted that during the said period there were holidays on
\n               14.04.2007 and 15.04.2007 and assembly budget session was
\n               going on.   Thereafter, the file was forwarded to me and after
\n               discussion   with   the   Investigating   Officer   and   carefully   going
\n               through the said proposal, I approved the same and formulated<\/p>\n
               the draft grounds of detention on 30.4.2007.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.        Now, these assertions in the affidavit are not borne out<\/p>\n
    by record. Before coming to the record, it will be necessary to reiterate<\/p>\n
    that this officer took over the charge of the Detaining Authority some<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span>
\n    time after 10th April, 2007, and the file came to her, for the first time, on<\/p>\n
    30th April, 2007. The record does not show that this file was sent to the<\/p>\n
    Detaining Authority before 30th April, 2007, but the file had been<\/p>\n
    endorsed by the Deputy Secretary on 20th April, 2007.                    Even if it<\/p>\n
    reached the Detaining Authority on the same day, then it can be<\/p>\n
    presumed that the Detaining Authority had 10 days with her to pass an<\/p>\n
    order on 30th April, 2007. Whereas in the counter-affidavit, she stated<\/p>\n
    that on 30th April, 2007, she approved the proposal and formulated the<\/p>\n
    Grounds of Detention, the record shows that she made the following<\/p>\n
    observation on the file: “Discuss with I.O. Issue Detention Order.” That<\/p>\n
    means the Detaining Authority made her mind to detain the detenu on<\/p>\n
    30th April, 2007 itself.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         We fail to understand how the Detaining Authority had taken<\/p>\n
    into consideration documents which were comprising of 7419 pages.\n<\/p>\n
    Even if it is accepted that she had 10 days before she passed an order<\/p>\n
    of directing issuance of Detention Order, although that is not proved by<\/p>\n
    the record itself, then, in our view, 10 days was not a sufficient time for<\/p>\n
    considering 7419 pages of documents.          The process of framing the<\/p>\n
    Grounds of Detention starts after the order has been passed for issuing<\/p>\n
    the Detention Order! – which amounts to placing the cart before the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span>
\n    horse.   If there are grounds of detention available to a               Detaining<\/p>\n
    Authority, then he can apply his mind, and examine whether a detenu<\/p>\n
    has to be detained or not; but once the Detaining Authority first decides<\/p>\n
    to detain a person, and then manufactures the grounds of detention,<\/p>\n
    that cannot be permitted. Even in the affidavit, it has been admitted that<\/p>\n
    the Grounds of Detention were framed after 30th April, 2007, and on 30th<\/p>\n
    April, 2007, the order with respect to issuance of Detention Order had<\/p>\n
    already been passed.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        Time and again, we have said that this is an extra-ordinary<\/p>\n
    power given to the officers of the State to detain a person without any<\/p>\n
    charges or without any chance of trial;      and this power should be<\/p>\n
    exercised with care. Since, on this ground alone, the Order of Detention<\/p>\n
    can be quashed, we do not go to the other grounds.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        In the result, the Order of Detention dated 11th February, 2008<\/p>\n
    is quashed, and the detenu, Amit Bajaj, be released forthwith, if not<\/p>\n
    required in any other case. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span>
\n            8<\/span><\/p>\n
                          BILAL NAZKI, J.\n<\/p>\n
                    A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.\n<\/p>\n
               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008 Bench: Bilal Nazki, A.A. Kumbhakoni 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Anuj Bajaj, ] …Petitioner Age 28 years, A-112, Derawala Nagar, ] (Brother of the Opposite […]<\/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-259463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 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\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-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=\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T12:01:19+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T12:01:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"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\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-18T12:01:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 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":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 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\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-18T12:01:19+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T12:01:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008"},"wordCount":1491,"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\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008","name":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-18T12:01:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anuj-bajaj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 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\/259463","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=259463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}