ANIL BABULAL CHOKHARA vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR — IA/1321/2026

Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 439. Disposed: Contested--Partly Allowed on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010199722026

Filing Number

IA/8354/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

IA/1321/2026

Registration Date

20-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Modification ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Partly Allowed

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 439

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANIL BABULAL CHOKHARA

    Adv. Sujit Sahoo

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR

  2. 2.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

    Summary The Bombay High Court partly allowed Anil Babulal Chokhara's application to modify bail conditions imposed on March 10, 2025. The court removed condition (iv) requiring trial court permission for domestic travel, finding it unnecessary since the applicant regularly attends trial proceedings. However, the court upheld condition (vi) restricting international travel, noting the applicant had only left Maharashtra once in the preceding year, causing minimal inconvenience, and that trial court permission remains mandatory for any travel outside Maharashtra regardless of other orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Circulation -1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/1321/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court partly allowed Anil Babulal Chokhara's application to modify bail conditions imposed on March 10, 2025. The court removed condition (iv) requiring trial court permission for domestic travel, finding it unnecessary since the applicant regularly attends trial proceedings. However, the court upheld condition (vi) restricting international travel, noting the applicant had only left Maharashtra once in the preceding year, causing minimal inconvenience, and that trial court permission remains mandatory for any travel outside Maharashtra regardless of other orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case