Allowed

Jayesh Mahendra Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Apr 2005APPLN/2461/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a criminal application for bail. The judge observed that the applicant was arrested solely based on the statement of a co-accused regarding passing currency notes, without evidence linking those specific notes to the applicant. Consequently, bail was granted on strict conditions including a personal bond, prohibitions on interfering with witnesses, and cooperation for

What did the court decide?

Application allowed on terms of bail: personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of similar amount; restriction on influencing witnesses; condition of cooperating for early trial disposal.

Jayesh Mahendra Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2461 OF 2005

¶5

 Shri Jayesh Mahendra Shah. ... Applicant

¶6

 versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent

¶8

 Mr.S.P.Kadam, for the Applicant.

¶9

 Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent.

¶10

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.

¶11

 25th APRIL, 2005

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Pursuant to order dated April 19, 2005,

¶14

 one Mr.Shivaji Jaivant Bhosale, Sub-Inspector of
 Police attached to Gadhinglaj Police Station,
 Dist.Kolhapur has appeared.

¶15

 2. In so far as non-appearance and/or
 failure to give instructions to Public Prosecutor
 inspite of intimation of scheduled date(i.e.April

¶16

:2:

¶17

 15,2005), is concerned, it is submitted that no
 intimation was received by the Gadhinglaj Police
 Station, where the offence is registered. It is
 incomprehensible that intimation sent by
 wireless, must not have reached to the concerned
 police station. According to the record
 maintained by the Office of the Public
 Prosecutor, intimation was forwarded on 13th
 April, 2005 during the working hours. Obviously,
 the wireless message must have reached the
 destination and the persons responsible for
 communicating the contents of the wireless to the
 concerned police station must have discharged
 their obligation. There is no reason to accept
 the bare statement made across the bar by the
 learned Public Prosecutor that the concerned
 police station did not receive intimation about
 the hearing of 15/4/2005. If that fact is
 correct, then there has been some lapse at the
 level of liason officer who is expected to
 communicate about the date of the hearing in time
 to the concerned police officer. Whereas, if the
 explanation is false, that is a serious matter.
 In any case, the matter needs to be examined by
 the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and steps

¶18

:3:

¶19

 taken in that behalf be placed on record before
 this court within two weeks from today.

¶20

 3. In so far as, failure to attend court
 proceedings on 19th April, 2005, affidavit has
 been filed by Shivaji Bhosale, sworn on 25th
 April, 2005, stating that Shri Anil R. Dabade,
 Asstt.Police Inspector was deputed with the
 relevant record and with due instructions to the
 Public Prosecutor who reached this court that day
 after 12 noon, by that time, the matter was
 already adjourned. Even this aspect be
 considered by the Superintendent of police,
 Kolhapur and correctness of the position be
 verified.

¶21

 4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶22

 5. Indeed the offence for which the

¶23

 applicant is arrested is serious offence.
 However, the applicant has been named merely on
 the basis of the statement of co-accused(Accused
 No.1) that he had received the offending four
 notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- from the
 applicant. There is no evidence, atleast brought

¶24

:4:

¶25

 to my notice, that the four notes which the
 applicant parted and in turn made over to Kupekar
 was the same currency which was received from the

¶26

 applicant. In other words, the applicant is
 arrested only on the basis of oral testimony of
 co-accused. That is not sufficient. In any
 case, it is a relevant fact which can be
 considered for bail. Besides, the co-accused
 No.1 has already been released on bail by the
 Lower Court, as investigation is complete and
 chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is
 therefore, entitled for bail on strict
 conditions, as no antecedents are reported
 against the applicant.

¶27

 6. Hence, application is allowed on the
 following terms.

¶28

 (i) The applicant is directed to be
 released on bail in connection with the
 C.R. NO.96 of 2004, registered with
 Gadhinglaj Police Station, on executing
 personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with
 two local sureties in like amount.

¶29

:5:

¶30

 (ii) The applicant shall not influence
 any prosecution witness nor tamper with
 prosecution evidence, in any manner,
 whatsoever.

¶31

 (iii) The applicant shall co-operate
 for early disposal of the trial as
 condition for bail. In the event, the
 trial court is of the opinion that the
 applicant is responsible for delay in
 trial, the same be recorded in roznama
 and that can be the basis for

¶32

 cancellation of bail.

¶33

 7. Although the application is disposed of
 on merits, however, it be placed under caption
 "directions" after two weeks to consider the
 action taken report to be submitted by the
 Superintendent of Police Kolhapur as referred to
 above.

Jayesh Mahendra Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Mahendra Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasareen Karim @ Raju Shaikh Vs Karim @ Raju Najaruddin Shaikh and Anr.

Sulochana Laxman Talwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Suryakant Parkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunita Pavankumar Morarka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Fazila W/O.Abdul Gaffar Mahimi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yashwant Krishna Chikane Vs the State of Maharashtra