Allowed

Gurudatta Balasaheb Koli and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Oct 2006APPA/431/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court considered the bail application of two convicts. After noting the prima facie circumstances and the fact that the applicants were on bail throughout the trial, the court enlarged them on bail subject to the deposition of the fine amount and monthly reporting to the police.

What did the court decide?

Applicants shall be enlarged on bail subject to fresh bonds, monthly reporting to police, and deposit of fine.

Gurudatta Balasaheb Koli and Anr. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.431 OF 2006

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.401 OF 2006

¶5

Gurudatta Balasaheb Koli Tanaji Mahadeo Raste

¶6

...Applicants

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mr.K.S.Patil i/b Mr.Tejpal Ingale for the Applicants Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P. for State

¶11

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 18,2006.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.	The	Applicants	are	the	accused	Nos.1	and	2 who	have		been
convicted	for	offe	nce	pun	ishable	under	section	394	of		the
Indian	Penal	Code.		The	subst	antive	sentence	is	R.I.		for
seven	years.	The	Appli	cants	have	been	directed	to	pay	fine	of

¶14

Rs.5000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for six months

¶15

each.

¶16

2.	According	to	the	case	of	the	prosecutio	n,	one	Madalal
Ratanchand	Oswal	was		robbed	by	the	three	acc	used	persons
including	the App	licants.		At t	hat	time,	the	said	Madanla	l was
carrying	gold	orna	ments	prepar	ed	for	M/s.	Pawan		Jewellers,
Dutta	Jewellers	and	M/s.M.	P.Saraf.		Acco	rding to	the	case	of

¶17

the first informant, the bag containing ornaments and his

¶18

wallet was robbed by throwing chilly powder on his face.

¶19

3.	According		to	the	case	of	the		prosecu	tion,	there	was
recovery	of	the	or	naments	at	the	insta	nce	of	the	accused	No.4
Santosh	Dahale		and	his	brother.		The	said	accu	sed	No.4	has

¶20

been	acq	uitted.		- 2 - Moreover,	Pa	nch	Witne	ss has	turned	h	ostile.
Apart	fr	om t	his	fact,	admitte	dly,	the	first in	formant	did	not
produce	the	alleged	orn	aments	in	the	court.	He	stated	that	he
has	not	given	either	the	ornam	ents	or	money to	the	jew	ellers
for	whom	he	had	prepared	the	orna	ments.	The	said	Ma	danlal
admitted	in	the	cross	exami	nation	that	he	has n	ot pro	duced	any
document		to sho	w th	at he	has	taken	or	ders from	the	conc	erned

¶21

jewellers for supply of gold ornaments. He could not produce

¶22

the documents as regards the said ornaments.

¶23

No identification parade has been held. The Applicants were on bail throughout the trial and no allegation has been made as regards misuse of the liberty granted to them. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The Applicants shall be enlarged on the same bail on which they were enlarged on the bail during the pendency of trial subject to filing fresh bail bonds.

¶24

made as regards misuse of the liberty granted to them. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶25

ii) Bail is granted subject to the condition that the Applicants will report to Yawat Police Station, Taluka Daund, District Pune once in every calender month till the final disposal of the Appeal.

¶26

iii) The order granting bail will be given effect to only after it is verified that both the Applicants have deposited the fine amount.

¶27

JUDGE

Gurudatta Balasaheb Koli and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudatta Balasaheb Koli and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messers Kelga Techno Sales Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs Messers Rishi Packers Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Nova Insuletions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajyalaxmi v. Rao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Haushila Prasad Vishwakarma Vs the State (Thr.Cbi,Acb,Mumbai) and Anr.

Inter Ocean Shipping Company Vs Kapasi Offshore Pvt.Ltd. and Ors.

Imran Nisar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra