{"id":98185,"date":"2010-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-04T10:21:05","modified_gmt":"2017-01-04T04:51:05","slug":"shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. V. Potdar<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD \n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2320 OF 2010   \n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     Shivraj s\/o Kashinathappa Gandge                              Applicant\n\n     VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n      \n     The State of Maharashtra                                      Respondent\n\n      \n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                      WITH\n                      \n               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2321 OF 2010   \n                     \n     Shivraj s\/o Kashinathappa Gandge                              Applicant\n\n     VERSUS\n      \n      \n\n\n     The State of Maharashtra                                      Respondent\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the applicant.\n     Mr. P.P.More,   A.P.P. for the Respondent.\n     Applicant is present in person. \n\n\n\n\n\n                                            CORAM :  A.V.POTDAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                            DATE      :  18th August, 2010.\n\n\n     P.C.:\n\n\n\n\n\n     1           By these applications, the applicant has challenged the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     orders dated 18.05.2010, passed below Exhibit-10 in Criminal Misc.\n<\/p>\n
     Application   No.47\/10   and   below   Exhibit-8   in   Criminal   Misc.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
     Application No.49\/10 on the file of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, <\/p>\n
     Latur, by which the applications moved by the prosecution to keep <\/p>\n
     the   applicant   present   at   the   time   of   hearing   of   anticipatory   bail <\/p>\n
     applications moved by him, without granting interim relief, came to <\/p>\n
     be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     2             Heard   Counsel   for   the   applicant   in   both   these <\/p>\n
     applications.  Today, the applicant is present before the Court as per <\/p>\n
     the   directions   of   this   Court.     Also   heard   learned   A.P.P.   for <\/p>\n
     Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
     3             During the course of submissions across the bar, it is the <\/p>\n
     only grievance put forth by the Counsel for the applicant that as no <\/p>\n
     interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant, the Court <\/p>\n
     cannot   insist   presence   of   applicant   at   the   time   of   hearing   of <\/p>\n
     anticipatory   bail   applications,   even   though   there   is   a   State <\/p>\n
     amendment to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which <\/p>\n
     speaks that on the application of the prosecution, if the presence of <\/p>\n
     the applicant – alleged accused is required at the time of hearing of <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
     anticipatory   bail application,  the  Court   to pass  necessary  order  to <\/p>\n
     that effect and secure presence of the applicant-accused at the time <\/p>\n
     of hearing of the anticipatory bail application.  Section 438(4), as per <\/p>\n
     the State amendment, reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                   (4)    The   presence   of   the   applicant   seeking
\n                   anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time
\n                   of final hearing of the application and passing
\n                   of final order by the Court, if on an application <\/p>\n
                   made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court
\n                   considers   such   presence   necessary   in   the <\/p>\n
                   interest of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4            In view of this State amendment, whether the presence of <\/p>\n
     applicant-accused is required as a mandate at the time of hearing of <\/p>\n
     anticipatory bail application or not, is decided by this Bench in the <\/p>\n
     matter   of  Ashik   Rameshchandra   Shah   &   others   Vs.   State   of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra  (reported in 2010 (2) LJSOFT (URC) 45, wherein it is <\/p>\n
     observed that:\n<\/p>\n
                  6.      After   having   heard   the   learned   Senior
\n                  Counsel appearing on behalf of applicants and <\/p>\n
                  the   learned   APP   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
\n                  State   and   after   taking   into   consideration
\n                  various judgments on which reliance is placed
\n                  by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on
\n                  behalf of applicants and from the conspectus of
\n                  cases which have been cited before this Court, I
\n                  am of the view that section 438 lays down the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
      manner and method and circumstances under
\n      which order of pre-arrest can be passed or not <\/p>\n
      passed. In that sense it is a self-contained Code
\n      and   a   scheme   in   itself   and   these   provisions, <\/p>\n
      therefore,   have   to   be   read   as   a   whole   and   it
\n      cannot  be said that provisions of sub-sections
\n      (3) & (4) of section 438 are mutually exclusive
\n      and operate in different ways. The Apex Court <\/p>\n
      in   Gurubaksh   Singh   Sibbia   (supra)   has
\n      observed in paragraphs 7, 26, 19, 16, 17, 42 and
\n      43 as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “(7)   The   facility   which   Section   438   affords   is
\n      generally   referred   to   as   ‘anticipatory   bail’,   an <\/p>\n
      expression   which   was   used   by   the   Law
\n      Commission   in   its   41st   Report.   Neither   the
\n      section   nor   its   marginal   note   so   describes   it <\/p>\n
      but,   the   expression   ‘anticipatory   bail’   is
\n      convenient mode of conveying that it is possible
\n      to  apply   for   bail  in  anticipation  of  arrest.  Any
\n      order   of   bail   can,   of   course,   be   effective   only <\/p>\n
      from the time of arrest because, to grant bail,
\n      as stated in Wharton’s Law Lexicon is to ‘set at <\/p>\n
      liberty   a   person   arrested   or   imprisoned,   on
\n      security being taken for his appearance’. Thus,
\n      bail   is   basically   release   from   restraint,   more <\/p>\n
      particularly,   release   from   the   custody   of   the
\n      police. The act of arrest directly affects freedom
\n      of   movement   of   the   person   arrested   by   the
\n      police, and speaking generally, an order of bail
\n      gives   back   to   the   accused   that   freedom   on <\/p>\n
      condition that he will appear to take his trial.
\n      Personal   recognisance,   suretyship   bonds   and
\n      such other modalities are the means by which
\n      an assurance is secured from the accused that
\n      though   he   has   been   released   on   bail,   he   will
\n      present himself at the trial of offence or offences
\n      of   which   he   is   charged   and   for   which   he   was <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
      arrested.”\n<\/p>\n
      “The   distinction   between   an   ordinary   order   of
\n      bail   and   an   order   of   anticipatory   bail   is   that <\/p>\n
      whereas the former is granted after arrest and
\n      therefore means release from the custody of the
\n      police,   the   latter   is   granted   in   anticipation   of
\n      arrest   and   is   therefore   effective   at   the   very <\/p>\n
      moment of arrest. Police custody is a inevitable
\n      concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences.
\n      An order of anticipatory bail constitutes, so to
\n      say,   an   insurance   against   police   custody <\/p>\n
      following upon arrest for offence or offences in
\n      respect   of   which   the   order   is   issued.   In   other <\/p>\n
      words,   unlike   a   post-arrest   order   of   bail,   it   is
\n      pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the
\n      person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter <\/p>\n
      arrested on the accusation in respect of which
\n      the direction is issued, he shall be released on
\n      bail.   Section   46(1)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
\n      Procedure which deals with how arrests are to <\/p>\n
      be   made,   provides   that   in   making   the   arrest,
\n      the   police   officer   or   other   person   making   the <\/p>\n
      arrest “shall actually touch or confine the body
\n      of the person to be arrested, unless there be a
\n      submission to the custody by word of action”. A <\/p>\n
      direction   under   Section   438   is   intended   to
\n      confer conditional immunity from his ‘touch’ or
\n      confinement.”\n<\/p>\n
      “(26) We find a great deal of substance in Mr. <\/p>\n
      Tarkunde’s submission that since denial of bail
\n      amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the
\n      court   should   lean   against   the   imposition   of
\n      unnecessary restrictions on he scope of Section
\n      438, especially when no such restrictions have
\n      been imposed by the legislature in the terms of
\n      that   section.   Section   438   is   a   procedural <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
      provision which is concerned with the personal
\n      liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the <\/p>\n
      benefit   of   the   presumption   of   innocence   since
\n      he   is   not,   on   the   date   of   his   application   for <\/p>\n
      anticipatory   bail,   convicted   of   the   offence   in
\n      respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous
\n      infusion   of   constraints   and   conditions   which
\n      are not to be found in Section 438 can make its <\/p>\n
      provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the
\n      right   to   personal   freedom   cannot   be   made   to
\n      depend   on   compliance   with   unreasonable
\n      restrictions. The beneficent provision contained <\/p>\n
      in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No
\n      doubt  can linger  after  the  decision  in  Maneka <\/p>\n
      Gandhi,   (Maneka   Gandhi   v.   Union   of   India,<\/a>
\n      (1978)   1   SCC   248)   that   in   order   to   meet   the
\n      challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution, the <\/p>\n
      procedure   established   by   law   for   depriving   a
\n      person   of   his   liberty   must   be   fair,   just   and
\n      reasonable. Section 438, in the form in which it
\n      is   conceived   by   the   legislature,   is   open   to   no <\/p>\n
      exception   on   the   ground   that   it   prescribes   a
\n      procedure which is unjust or unfair. We ought, <\/p>\n
      at   all   costs,   to   avoid   throwing   it   open   to   a
\n      Constitutional challenge by reading words in it
\n      which are not to be found therein.”\n<\/p>\n
      “19.   A   great   deal   has   been   said   by   the   High
\n      Court   on   the   fifth   proposition   framed   by   it,
\n      according to which, inter alia, the power under
\n      Section   438   should   not   be   exercised   if   the <\/p>\n
      investigating   agency   can   make   a   reasonable
\n      claim that it can secure incriminating material
\n      from information likely to be received from the
\n      offender under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
\n      According to the High Court, it is the right and
\n      the duty of the police to investigate into offences
\n      brought   to   their   notice   and,   therefore,   courts <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
      should be careful not to exercise their powers in
\n      a   manner   which   is   calculated   to   cause <\/p>\n
      interference   therewith.   It   is   true   that   the
\n      functions of the judiciary and the police are in a <\/p>\n
      sense   complementary   and   not   overlapping.   As
\n      observed by the Privy Council in King-Emperor
\n      v.  Khwaja   Nazir   Ahmed<\/a>   (1943-44)   71  IA   203   :
\n      AIR 1945 PC 18 : 46 Cri LJ 413).”\n<\/p>\n
      “Just as it is essential that every one accused of
\n      a   crime   should   have  free   access   to  a   court   of
\n      justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found <\/p>\n
      not   guilty   of   the   offence   with   which   he   is
\n      charged, so it is of the utmost importance that <\/p>\n
      the   judiciary   should   not   interfere   with   the
\n      police   in   matters   which   are   within   their
\n      province   and   into   which   the   law   imposes   on <\/p>\n
      them the duty of inquiry ….. The functions of
\n      the judiciary and the police are complementary,
\n      not   overlapping,   and   the   combination   of   the
\n      individual liberty with a due observance of law <\/p>\n
      and order is only to be obtained by leaving each
\n      to exercise its own function,. . .”\n<\/p>\n
      “But   these   remarks,   may   it   be   remembered,
\n      were made by the Privy Council while rejecting <\/p>\n
      the view of the Lahore High Court that it had
\n      inherent jurisdiction under the old Section 561-
\n      A,   Criminal   Procedure   Code,   to   quash   all
\n      proceedings taken by the police in pursuance of
\n      two first information reports made to them. An <\/p>\n
      order   quashing  such  proceedings   puts   an  end
\n      to   the   proceedings   with   the   inevitable   result
\n      that all investigation into the accusation comes
\n      to a halt. Therefore, it was held that the court
\n      cannot,  in  the exercise  of  its  inherent   powers,
\n      virtually   direct   that   the   police   shall   not
\n      investigate   into   the   charges   contained   in   the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
      FIR. We are concerned here with a situation of
\n      an   altogether   different   kind.   An   order   of <\/p>\n
      anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or
\n      indirectly, take away from the police their right <\/p>\n
      to investigate into charges made or to be made
\n      against the person released on bail. In fact, two
\n      of   the   usual   conditions   incorporated   in   a
\n      direction issued under Section 438(1) are those <\/p>\n
      recommended in sub-section (2)(i) and (ii) which
\n      require   the   applicant   to   cooperate   with   the
\n      police  and  to assure that  he  shall  not  tamper
\n      with   the   witnesses   during   and   after   the <\/p>\n
      investigation.   While   granting   relief   under
\n      Section   438(1),   appropriate   conditions   can   be <\/p>\n
      imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure
\n      an   uninterrupted   investigation.   One   of   such
\n      conditions can even be that in the event of the <\/p>\n
      police   making   out   a   case   of   a   likely   discovery
\n      under   section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act,   the
\n      person   released   on   bail   shall   be   liable   to   be
\n      taken   in   police   custody   for   facilitating   the <\/p>\n
      discovery.”\n<\/p>\n
      “Besides,   if   and   when   the   occasion   arises,   it
\n      may be possible for the prosecution to claim the
\n      benefit   of   Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act   in <\/p>\n
      regard   to   a   discovery   of   facts   made   in   the
\n      principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. v.
\n      Deoman Upadhyaya<\/a> ((1961) 1 SCR,14, 26 : AIR
\n      1960 SC 1125 : 1960 Cri LJ 1504) to the effect
\n      that when a person not in custody approaches a <\/p>\n
      police officer investigating an offence and offers
\n      to give information leading to the discovery of a
\n      fact, having a bearing on the charge which may
\n      be made against him, he may appropriately be
\n      deemed   so   have   surrendered   himself   to   the
\n      police.   The   broad   foundation   of   this   rule   is
\n      stated   to   be   that   Section   46   of   the   Code   of <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
      Criminal   Procedure   does   not   contemplate   any
\n      formality   before   a   person   can   be   said   to   be <\/p>\n
      taken in custody : submission to the custody by
\n      word   or   action   by   a   person   is   sufficient.   For <\/p>\n
      similar   reasons,   we   are   unable   to   agree   that
\n      anticipatory   bail   should   be   refused   if   a
\n      legitimate case for the remand of the offender to
\n      the police custody  under   section  167(2) of the <\/p>\n
      Code is made out by the investigating agency.”\n<\/p>\n
      “16.   A   close   look   at   some   of   the   rules   in   the
\n      eight-point code formulated by the High Court <\/p>\n
      will   show   how   difficult   it   is   to   apply   them   in
\n      practice. The seventh proposition says:\n<\/p>\n
      “The   larger   interest   of   the   public   and   State
\n      demand   that   in   serious   cases   like   economic <\/p>\n
      offences   involving   blatant   corruption   at   the
\n      higher   rungs   of   the   executive   and   political
\n      power, the discretion under Section 438 of the
\n      Code should not be exercised.”\n<\/p>\n
      “17.  How can the  court, even if it  had a third <\/p>\n
      eye, assess the blatantness of corruption at the
\n      stage of anticipatory bail? And will it be correct
\n      to say that blatantness of the accusations will <\/p>\n
      suffice   for   rejecting   the   bail,   if   the   applicant’s
\n      conduct   is   painted   in   colours   too   lurid   to   be
\n      true? The eighth proposition rule framed by the
\n      High Court says :\n<\/p>\n
      “Mere   general   allegations   of   mala   fides   in   the
\n      petition   are   inadequate.   The   court   must   be
\n      satisfied   on   materials   before   it   that   the
\n      allegations of mala fides are substantial and the
\n      accusation appears to be false and groundless.”\n<\/p>\n
      “Does this rule mean, and that is the argument <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
      of the learned Additional Solicitor-General, that
\n      anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless it is <\/p>\n
      alleged   (and   naturally,   also   shown,   because
\n      mere   allegation   is   never   enough)   that   the <\/p>\n
      proposed   accusation   are   mala   fide?   It   is
\n      understandable   that   if   mala   fides   are   shown,
\n      anticipatory   bail   should   be   granted   in   the
\n      generality   of   cases.   But   it   is   not   easy   to <\/p>\n
      appreciate   why   an   application   for   anticipatory
\n      bail must be rejected unless the accusation is
\n      shown to be mala fide. Thus, truly, is the risk
\n      involved   in   framing   rules   by   judicial <\/p>\n
      construction. Discretion, therefore, ought to be
\n      permitted to remain in the domain of discretion, <\/p>\n
      to   be   exercised   objectively   and   open   to
\n      correction   by   the   higher   courts.   The   safety   of
\n      discretionary power lies in this twin protection <\/p>\n
      which provides a safeguard against its abuse.”\n<\/p>\n
      “42.   There   was   some   discussion   before   us   on
\n      certain minor modalities regarding the passing <\/p>\n
      of   bail   orders   under   Section   438(1).   Can   an
\n      order   of   bail   be   passed   under   the   section <\/p>\n
      without notice to the Public Prosecutor ? It can
\n      be.   But   notice   should   issue   to   the   Public
\n      Prosecutor   or   the   Government   Advocate <\/p>\n
      forthwith and the question of bail should be re-
\n      examined   in   the   light   of   the   respective
\n      contentions of the parties. The ad interim order
\n      too   must   conform   to   the   requirements   of   the
\n      section   and   suitable   conditions   should   be <\/p>\n
      imposed   on   the   applicant   even   at   that   stage.
\n      Should the operation of an order passed under
\n      Section 438(1) be limited in point of time? Not
\n      necessarily. The court may, if there are reasons
\n      for doing so, limit the operation of the order to
\n      short  period until after the filing  of an FIR in
\n      respect of the matter covered by the order. The <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
      applicant   may   in   such   cases   be   directed   to
\n      obtain an order of bail under section 437 or 439 <\/p>\n
      of   the   Code   within   a   reasonably   short   period
\n      after the filing of the FIR as aforesaid. But this <\/p>\n
      need not be followed as an invariable rule. The
\n      normal rule should be not to limit the operation
\n      of the order in relation to a period of time.”\n<\/p>\n
      “43. During the last couple of years this Court,
\n      while   dealing   with   appeals   against   orders
\n      passed   by   various   High   Courts,   has   granted
\n      anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing <\/p>\n
      conditions set  out  in Section  438(2)(i),  (ii)  and\n<\/p>\n
      (iii). The court has, in addition, directed in most <\/p>\n
      of   those   cases   that   (a)   the   applicant   should
\n      surrender himself to the police for a brief period
\n      if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of <\/p>\n
      the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed
\n      to have surrendered himself if such a discovery
\n      is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the
\n      court has, in view of the material placed before <\/p>\n
      it,   directed   that   the   order   of   anticipatory   bail
\n      will remain in operation only for a week or so <\/p>\n
      until   after   the   filing   of   the   FIR   in   respect   of
\n      matters covered by the order. These orders, on
\n      the   whole,   have   worked   satisfactorily,   causing <\/p>\n
      the   least   inconvenience   to   the   individuals
\n      concerned   and   least   interference   with   the
\n      investigational   rights   of   the   police.   The   court
\n      has attempted through those orders to strike a
\n      balance   between   the   individual’s   right   to <\/p>\n
      personal freedom and the investigational rights
\n      of the police. The appellants who were refused
\n      anticipatory   bail   by   various   courts   have   long
\n      since been released by this Court under Section
\n      438(1) of the Code.”\n<\/p>\n
              Therefore, the Apex Court has laid down <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
                   the power and scope of the power which has to
\n                   be exercised by the Courts under section 438.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The   Apex   Court   also   has   observed   that   the
\n                   Court   has   power   to   grant   interim   protection <\/p>\n
                   when it comes to the conclusion that it is not
\n                   possible   to   decide   the   case   immediately   and
\n                   during   such   time   appropriate   interim   orders
\n                   can be passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5             As it is observed in the matter of  Ashik Rameschandra <\/p>\n
     Shah   &   others   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra,   in   para   6,   as   referred <\/p>\n
     supra,  now the situation is made clear by this Bench in that order, <\/p>\n
     that this mandate to follow if interim protection is granted,  otherwise <\/p>\n
     not.    Considering  this  aspect,  prima facie,  the  orders impugned  in <\/p>\n
     these applications are not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     6             Today, when the applications came up for final hearing, <\/p>\n
     Counsel for the applicant submitted across the bar, tomorrow these <\/p>\n
     applications are listed for final hearing before the Ad hoc Additional <\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge, Latur.   Hence, if protection is granted till tomorrow <\/p>\n
     to   the   applicant,   the   applicant   will   appear   before   the   Ad   hoc <\/p>\n
     Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Latur,   during   the   hearing   of   those <\/p>\n
     Criminal Misc. Applications for anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
     7             Bearing   in   mind   these   aspects,   both   the   applications <\/p>\n
     succeed.   The orders dated 18.05.2010, passed below Exhibit-10 in <\/p>\n
     Criminal Misc. Application No.47\/10 and below Exhibit-8 in Criminal <\/p>\n
     Misc.   Application   No.49\/10,     are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
     Both these applications now deserve for the following order:\n<\/p>\n
                                         ORDER<\/p>\n
     (a)<\/p>\n
                   Both the Applications are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)           Interim protection granted to the applicant in the event <\/p>\n
     of his arrest in connection with CR Nos. 7\/09 and 6\/09, registered in <\/p>\n
     Chakur  Police Station, District  Latur, the applicant be released on <\/p>\n
     bail   on   furnishing   solvent   surety   in   the   sum   of   Rs.15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rs.Fifteen thousand) and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount.\n<\/p>\n
     (c)           This protection is granted till Criminal Misc. Applications <\/p>\n
     No.47\/10   and   49\/10   are   finally   decided   and   disposed   of   by   the <\/p>\n
     concerned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.\n<\/p>\n
     (d)           It is hereby made clear that these orders are not passed <\/p>\n
     on   the   merits   of   those   applications,   but   are   passed   on   purely <\/p>\n
     technical aspect, whether presence of the applicant is required, if no <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
     interim protection is granted, at the time of hearing of anticipatory <\/p>\n
     bail application.\n<\/p>\n
     (e)           Both the Applications stand disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     (f)           Parties   to   act   on   the   authenticated   copy   of   this   order <\/p>\n
     duly signed by the Associate of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ( A.V.POTDAR )<\/p>\n
                                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
     adb\/criapln232010<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:19:13 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 Bench: A. V. Potdar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2320 OF 2010 Shivraj s\/o Kashinathappa Gandge Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2321 OF 2010 Shivraj s\/o […]<\/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-98185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - 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\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-04T04:51:05+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T04:51:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3059,\"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\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-04T04:51:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - 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\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-04T04:51:05+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T04:51:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010"},"wordCount":3059,"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\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010","name":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-04T04:51:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivraj-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shivraj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/98185","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=98185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}