Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)

Directorate Of Enforcement vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 August, 2022

In the order passed by this Court on 10.06.2022 in the case of Nawab Malik (supra) in paragraph 5 it has been observed that considering the fact that prayer was sought for release on bond, the matter for release of the applicant therein would pertain to the court having assignment of bail. The release on bond efected in the present case is covered by provision of Section 445 of Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid it is observed that the release on bond is contemplated under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the order dated 10.06.2022 can be distinguished. In that case in the application before the Lower Court preferred by the said petitioner the title of the application was for bail and the prayer sought in that application was also for bail. Learned counsel for the respondent however urged that the counsel for petitioner rightly mentioned matter before the Court having assignment of bail and this Court shall not entertain this application for want of assignment of hearing such application. In any case, it is seen that the order which is under challenge in the present application relates to release of respondents from custody on PR bonds and surety. In Ethape 8 43-APL-737-2022.doc these circumstances, without making any observation on the merits of this case, I am of the opinion that this matter will have to be heard by the Court having assignment of bail. The petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P D Naik - Full Document

Nilesh Ram Salunke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 December, 2025

4. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel, however, highly opposed this application and submitted that there is no statutory right entitling him to remain present at the time of counting and as such, his request for modification should be rejected. He further relied on the judgment of Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement and another passed in Bail Appln.No.1787/2022 with Interim Application No. 1734/2022 in support of his submission. According to Mr. Salunke, the applicant is not having similar rights as those of other accused since this Court has specifically directed to remain outside the Dharashiv City.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nilesh Ram Salunke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 December, 2025

4. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel, however, highly opposed this application and submitted that there is no statutory right entitling him to remain present at the time of counting and as such, his request for modification should be rejected. He further relied on the judgment of Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement and another passed in Bail Appln.No.1787/2022 with Interim Application No. 1734/2022 in support of his submission. According to Mr. Salunke, the applicant is not having similar rights as those of other accused since this Court has specifically directed to remain outside the Dharashiv City.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ushik Mahesh Gala vs Directorate Of Enforcement Through The ... on 15 April, 2026

2. Mr. Pavan Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Petition. His objection is that the prayer in the present Petition 1 ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:37:30 ::: (45) WPST-7305.26.DOCX essentially seeks the grant of Regular bail. He relies on the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Moreshwar Damle1 and Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Mali Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Through Asst. Director2 to submits that when the Petitioner has a specific, effective alternate remedy by way of applying for Regular bail, this Court should not entertain the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He emphasises that there are no exceptional circumstances made out by the Petitioner to request the exercise of discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1