STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DHANENDRA SHRIRAM BHURLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, granting bail to the respondents. The accused persons are facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 18 & 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short the 'Act') and Sections 3&4 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act') and Section 353 read with Sections 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court referred to the circumstances highlighted by the parties and came to hold that the accusations/imputation do not constitute the charged offences. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has misconceived the scope and ambit of the provisions and misinterpreted the ingredients of the offence and came to an abrupt conclusion that no offence is made out. This will seriously prejudice the trial. No reason has been indicated as to why the High Court came to the conclusion, that too abruptly that no offence was made out so far as the charged offences are concerned.