Bombay High Court Digest On Bail 2023

1. MCOCA | Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute Does Not Invalidate Extension Of Judicial Custody Given By Special Court: Bombay High Court Case Title: Naresh s/o Netram Nagpure and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 4 Once the court extends the judicial custody of an accused, the refusal of sanction to prosecute will not invalidate the extension of custody, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant default bail in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The division bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre and MW Chandwani of the Nagpur bench observed that the power of Special Judge under MCOCA to extend judicial custody by 90 days and power of Additional DGP to give sanction for prosecution under MCOCA have different object. Though the petitioners applied for bail 30 minutes before the charge sheet was filed, the right to seek default bail would arise only on the next day, the court said adding that for the purpose of ascertaining when the period of authorized custody comes to an end, only the number of completed days is relevant and not the time at which the event having the effect of rendering the custody as unauthorized took place. 2. Non-Confession Of Accused Doesn't Amount To Non-Cooperation, Accused Must Be Released Forthwith If Arrest Doesn't Satisfy Section 41 CrPC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Chanda Kochhar v. CBI Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 15 Merely saying that the accused has not co-operated and disclosed true and full facts of the case, cannot be the sole reason for arrest, the Bombay High Court said in its detailed order granting interim relief of bail to Ex-ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar in the ICICI Bank-Videocon loan fraud case. A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan further sought accountability from judicial officers remanding accused and ordering their detention after arrest. 3. Can't Arrest Accused On Whims And Fancies, CBI's Grounds Of Arrest 'Without Any Substance': Bombay High Court In Venugopal Dhoot's Bail Order Case Title: Venugopal Nandllal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 39 In its detailed order directing the interim release of former Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the Bombay High Court stressed on the need to mention concrete reasons for arresting an individual and on the court's duty to record its satisfaction while remanding a person to the police custody. A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan cited the non-compliance of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, while granting relief to Dhoot. The arrest memo is sans particulars of how the statements are inconsistent or how Dhoot failed to cooperate as he had already attended CBI's office but couldn't be confronted due to absence of other accused, it said. Regarding the remand orders dated 26, 28 and 29 December, 2022, the court noted that the presiding officer simply observed that he has perused the case diary and found that the offence is of serious nature. The bench said it is clear that the court hadn't made an effort to scrutinize the remand application or the case diary. 4. Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Former Encounter Specialist Pradeep Sharma; Says He Is Influential, Tampering Cannot Be Ruled Out Case Title: Pradeep Sharma v. NIA Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 48 The Bombay High Court denied bail to former “encounter specialist” Pradeep Sharma, an accused in the Antilia Terror Scare and Manshukh Hiran Murder Case citing his clout and prosecution in a past encounter. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and R. N. Laddha also questioned Sharma's presence in then Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh's chamber in March 2021. It is the NIA's case that Sharma and dismissed cop Sachin Waze planned Hiran's murder within the Mumbai Police Commissionerate. The HC criticized NIA's investigation into the terror threat near the Ambani residence. The court said that NIA has not done in-depth investigation. Sharma's name came up for the first time as a co-conspirator during a hearing and that too after being asked by the court, the bench noted. It added that the NIA has not mentioned this anywhere in the charge sheet. 5. Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Neighbour Booked Under SC/ST Act For Whistling, Says Making Sounds In His Own House Does Not Show Sexual Intent Case Title: Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to three persons accused of committing atrocities against a member of a Scheduled Caste observing that mere creation of sound by accused in his own house cannot mean that it was with sexual intent. The court also noted that in the first...

Bombay High Court Digest On Bail 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags