Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)

Gajanan Dattatraya Pore vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 July, 2005

7. Based on the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the subsidy diversion allegation is qua the 12025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 5 Company. The appellant is allegedly one of the Directors of the Company. To what extent the appellant’s culpability is there in the crime, is a matter of trial. In such circumstances, taking into account that the offences for which the appellant is suffering incarceration or had suffered incarceration are triable by a Court of Magistrate, it was not a case where consideration of the bail prayer of the appellant should have been deferred even though investigation was complete and by then the appellant had already suffered incarceration for a period exceeding five months. Otherwise also, if a person is unable to comply with the undertaking, that is not a ground to defer consideration of bail prayer on merits.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R C Chavan - Full Document
1