Allowed

Abdul Aslam Salim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Apr 2007APPA/415/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by Abdul @ Aslam Salim Shaikh against convictions under Sections 399, 402 IPC and the Arms Act, condoning a delay of 113 days due to the applicant's incarceration. The court also admitted another appeal where the sentence status was deferred for jail verification. The quality is thin.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of a 113-day delay in filing the appeal; admission of the appeal; time granted to verify sentence status via jail authorities.

Abdul Aslam Salim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 SIDE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2007
IN

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.696 OF 2006

¶4

 Abdul @ Aslam Salim Shaikh ...Applicant.
 V/s.
 State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents.

¶5

 Shri Abhaykumar Apte, adv. for the Applicant.
 Smt.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶6

 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J.
 DATE : 4th April, 2007.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

 2. The applicant, who is accused no.4 has

¶10

 preferred an appeal through jail. This application is

¶11

 filed for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the
 appeal. As the applicant is in jail and he could not
 get any legal aid, delay was caused. Ms.Gajare, the
 learned APP has no objection to condone the delay.

¶12

 3. Therefore, applciation is allowed. Delay in

¶13

 filing appeal is condoned.

¶14

 (J.H.Bhatia,J.)

¶15

 : 2 :

¶16

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 SIDE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.696 OF 2006

¶17

 Abdul @ Aslam Salim Shaikh ...Appellant.
 V/s.
 State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.

¶18

 Shri Abhaykumar Apte, adv. for the Appellant.
 Smt.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶19

 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J.
 DATE : 4th April, 2007.

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

 2. Admit.

¶23

 3. The appellant was convicted for the offence

¶24

 punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and
 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a
 fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo further
 R.I. for six months on each count. He was also

¶25

 convicted under the Arms Act and was sentenced to
 undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of
 Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for six

¶26

 months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on

¶27

 all the counts was to run concurrently. Mr.Apte, the
 learned advocate appointed for the appellant, makes a
 statement that taking into consideration his custody
 period, he must have already completed his sentences

¶28

 : 3 :

¶29

 including sentence in default to pay fine. Mr.Gajare
 seeks time to get report from the jail authorities as to
 whether the appellant/accused no.4 is still in jail or
 he is released.

¶30

 4. S.O. one week.

¶31

 5. Meanwhile, office will find out whether other 3

¶32

 accused, who were also convicted have preferred any
 appeals. If so, those appeals be also tagged with the

¶33

 present one.

¶34

 (J.H.Bhatia,J.)

Abdul Aslam Salim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Aslam Salim Shaikh 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivshankar Revanisddha Kabade

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Hari Hire

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Vithal Phadtare

Dilip Dattatraya Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manya Janglya Waghe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surinder Singhjora Singh Punjabi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.