High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction considered a bail application by a convict sentenced to 10 years for IPC offences, holding the case unfit for bail due to the applicant being a habitual offender with pending cases and probable recovery of arms.
Bail application rejected; applicant not granted bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2006
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.42 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.P. Gupte for the Applicant.
Mr. S.S.Tatkare,APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 18/4/2006.
P.C.
1. This is an application for grant of
bail.
2. The applicant has been convicted
for offences punishable under Section
392,394,397 and 450 read with 34 of the
I.P.C. He has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10-years. The State
has strongly opposed the application.
It is pointed out that the present
applicant is habitual offender. He was
earlier involved in similar crime and
C.R.No.97/98 was registered by
:2:
Ghatkopar Police Station for the
offences punishable U/s.
397,308,307,450,120B, 201, 412 and 414
of the I.P.C., U/s. 3,25 of the Arms
Act and U/s.135 of the Bombay Police
Act. This case is still pending. Yet
another case is registered by Borivali
Police Station under C.R.No.114/98 for
offences punishable U/s.
450,395,397,342,427,412,414, 120B, 109
read with 34 of the I.P.C., U/s. 3,25
of the Arms Act and U/s.135 of the
Bombay Police Act and this case is also
still pending. It appears that the
present conviction is in third case.
Prima facie there is recovery of one
chopper and toy pistol at the instance
of the present applicant. This is not
a fit case for grant of bail. Hence,
application is rejected.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a convicted habitual offender with pending cases and prior recovery of arms.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal record and pending investigations warrant refusal of bail.
Whether the prima facie evidence of recovery of a chopper and pistol precludes the grant of bail.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant
State
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court