Allowed

Hari Sukumar Nair v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jun 2006APPLN/1623/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for bail in a robbery case under Sections 392, 394, 397, 398 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court granted bail to the accused directing a sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety, noting antecedents and a Section 107 IPC order.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount, subject to fortnightly reporting.

Hari Sukumar Nair Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

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

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1623 OF 2006

¶3

 Hari Sukumar Nair ..Applicant
 v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
 -------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office
 Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
 appearances, Court’s orders
 or directions and
 Registrar’s orders

¶4

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.Zia-Ul Mustafa for the
 applicant.
 Mr.R.Y.Mirza APP for the State.

¶5

Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
 Date : 15.6.2006.
 PC
 1. This is an application for
 grant of bail. The applicant is
 shown as an accused in
 C.R.No.459/2006 registered by
 Malad police station for
 offences punishable under
 Sections 392, 394, 397, 398 read
 with section 34 of IPC. The
 crime has been registered on a
 complaint of one Premji Bohra
 who was working as a peon with

¶6

 : 2 :

¶7

 the company. According to the
 complaint on 3.10.2005 at 8.30
 A.M. the complainant was
 proceeding to deposit cash and
 cheques in HDFC bank. He was
 accosted by some persons and one
 of them thrown chilly powder in
 the eyes of the complainant and
 two other unknown persons
 assaulted the complainant by
 wooden plank. They snatched the
 bag containing cash of
 Rs.3,90,000 and cheques. The
 present applicant is not named
 in the FIR . In so far as the
 applicant is concerned, he has
 not played any direct role but
 the case against him was he was
 standing nearby and directing
 the accused persons. He has
 been identified by the driver
 Uday Raj. Amount of Rs.5,200/-

¶8

 was deposited by the applicant
 with the bank on the same day
 and Rs.58,100/- was deposited on

¶9

 the next day. The police have
 seized Rs.49,300/- from the bank

¶10

 and some amounts from his
 friend. The total recovery of

¶11

 : 3 :

¶12

 Rs.1,92,000/- has already been
 made. It appears that this
 Court passed an order on
 24.4.2006 releasing the person
 who has actually taken part in
 the offence and who has thrown
 the chilly powder. Bail was
 granted to Dinesh Joshi. The
 present applicant is behind the
 bar since October-2005. It is
 unlikely that there will be any
 further recovery. Taking into
 account the fact that the person
 who has participated in the
 assault has been granted bail, I
 am inclined to grant bail to the
 present applicant. In the
 circumstances, it is directed
 that pending his trial in
 pursuance of C.R.No.459/2006 the

¶13

 applicant may be released on

¶14

 bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
 with one surety in the like

¶15

 amount subject to the condition

¶16

 that he will report to the
 investigating officer once a
 fortnight on the 1st and 3rd
 Monday till the conclusion of
 the trial. It is made clear

¶17

 : 4 :

¶18

`that larger amount of bail has`
`been granted because there are`
`some antecedents against the`
`present applicant and there is`
`also order passed under Section`
`107 of IPC.`

¶19

(R.S.Mohite,J)

Hari Sukumar Nair v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Sukumar Nair 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Babu Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Joseph Dominic Rodriguez Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Shubhangi S. Ayare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhav Mishra and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayed Akbar Anis and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nuruddin @ Kallu Iqbal Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra