Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 21 in The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999. [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Section 4 in The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999. [Entire Act]
Section 395 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vijendra Molchand Kuril vs The State Of Maharashtra, P.S. Akot ... on 12 September, 2017
5. The learned Prosecutor and the learned advocate Mr. Rathi for
the original informant strongly oppose the Writ Petitions and submit that
invoking a serious charge at later point of time is indeed a supervening
circumstance, the cognizance of which ought to be taken for cancelling the
bail. They submit that not only in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy (supra)
but in couple of other subsequent decisions, Vijendra Molchand Kuril Vs.
State of Maharashtra ; Criminal Application (APL) No.7/2016 and Karan
Ranjit Paropate Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., ; Criminal Writ Petition
No.1029/2017, this Court has taken same stand, referring to the decision in
the case of Sarang A. Goswamy. Therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned order which merely follows the decision in the case of Sarang A.
Goswamy.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Hamida vs Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors on 27 April, 2007
The learned advocate would pertinently point out the fact
that earlier decision in the case of Hamida Vs. Rashid ; (2008) 1 SCC 474,
has been referred to wherein it has been specifically observed that after
addition of serious non-cognizable offences, the accused who has been
granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the
newly added offences. They would therefore submit that though there could
be some error in articulating the prayer in the application whereby bail was
sought to be cancelled, the procedure being hand maid of justice, the
impugned order can be read to mean that what was asked before the
learned Judge and what was actually granted was merely a permission to
arrest the petitioners.
Section 3 in The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999. [Entire Act]
Sarang Arvind Goswamy vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2005
13. It is important to note that in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy,
Vijendra M. Kuril and Karan R. Paropate (supra), this Court has proceeded
to look upon this as supervening circumstance entitling the Court granting
the bail to cancel it. Even the learned Judge while passing the impugned
order has proceeded on the same line relying upon the decision of Sarang A.
Goswamy.