Partly allowed

Jivaram Ganeshram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Apr 2006APPA/75/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three concurrent bail applications filed by co-accused in the same Sessions case. Bail was rejected for one accused caught red-handed with counterfeit coins, but granted to the others.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 202/2006 rejected; Criminal Applications No. 75/2006 and 162/2006 allowed with bail of ₹25,000 each and monthly reporting.

Jivaram Ganeshram Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRI. APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2006 IN APPEAL NO.62/2006
 WITH

¶4

 CRI. APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2006 IN APPEAL NO.151/2006
 AND

¶5

 CRI. APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2006 IN APPEAL NO.7/2006

¶6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶7

 C.A.75/2006

¶8

 Mr.M.K. Kocharekar i/by Mr.Rajiv
 Sawant for the applicant.

¶9

 Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP. for the State.

¶10

 Mr. Jagdish Choudhary with S.P. Kadam
 for the applicants.

¶11

 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP. for the State.

¶12

 Mrs. Pooja Bhojane for the Applicant.

¶13

 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP. for the State.

¶14

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : 3/4/2006.

¶15

 P.C.

¶16

 1. Since these three bail applications

¶17

 are filed by co accused who had filed

¶18

 separate appeals against the same

¶19

:2:

¶20

 judgment and order convicting them
 under Section-232,234,235,240 read with
 34 and 120B of the I.P.C., all the
 applications have been disposed of by
 this common order.

¶21

 2. Criminal Application No.75/2006 in
 Criminal Appeal No.62/2006 has been
 preferred by Jivaram G. Choudhary who
 was the original accused No.4, Criminal
 Application No.202/2006 in Criminal
 Appeal No.7/2006 has been preferred by
 Vinod S. Verma who was the original
 accused No.1 and Criminal Application
 No.162/2006 in Criminal appeal
 No.151/2006 has been preferred by
 Jagdish P. Choudhary who was the
 original accused No.3 in Sessions Case
 No.98/2005.

¶22

 3. Upon hearing the advocates for the
 applicants and the A.P.P, and on
 perusing the record which has been
 called for, it is clear that the case
 against the accused No.1 Vinod S.
 Verma stands on different footing. He
 has been caught red handed with the

¶23

:3:

¶24

 counterfeit coins and the said coins
 have been recovered from his person.
 This fact has been deposed to by two
 police officers and the independent
 panchas. In my view, no case for grant
 of bail has been made out by accused
 No.1 and Criminal Application No.202 of
 2006 preferred by him stands rejected.

¶25

 4. As regards the original accused
 Nos. 3 and 4, the prosecution case was

¶26

 that the accused No.1 led them to
 premises where they were found. Prima
 facie, it is an arguable point as to
 whether merely because they were found
 present, without any other
 corroborating evidence, a conviction
 under Section 120 B of the I.P.C.
 could follow. In the circumstances,
 Criminal Application Nos. 75/2006 and
 162/2006 are allowed and pending final
 disposal of their appeals, the
 applicants Mr. Jivaram G. Choudhary
 and Jagdish P.Choudhary are directed to
 be released on bail in the sum of
 Rs.25,000/- each with one local surety
 from Greater Bombay each subject to the

¶27

:4:

¶28

 further condition that they will report
 to the Station House Officer, DCB
 C.I.D., Unit X, Andheri, Mumbai once in
 a month on every first Monday till

¶29

 final disposal of their appeals.

¶30

 5. The applications stand disposed off

¶31

 accordingly.

¶32

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Jivaram Ganeshram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivaram Ganeshram Choudhary 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

Vinod Hangorani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Fulchand Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vasant Sanglikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra Rangnath Adake and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. N. Vensimal International Vs M/S. Indian Technical Institute and Anr.

Mehul Shah Gopaldas Shah Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Anr.