Dismissed

Umesh Vasudeo Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2009APPA/657/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed bail applications filed by two accused persons convicted under IPC sections 498-A, 306, and 304-B. The court held that bail cannot be granted during the pendency of the concurrent criminal appeal, which was adjourned for the next week.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications no. 1089/2008 and 657/2008 dismissed; Criminal appeal no. 296/2008 adjourned.

Umesh Vasudeo Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

-1-

¶2

bpk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 657 OF 2008

¶4

AND

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1089 OF 2008

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2008

¶8

Smt. Umesh Vasudeo Gupta

¶9

: Applicant

¶10

v/s

¶11

State of Maharashtra : Respondent

¶12

Ms. Kranti S.S. Anand i/b Shailesh Kumar Pandey Advocate for Applicant Mr. S.R. Shinde Advocate for Respondent

¶13

Coram : A.R. Joshi,J. Date : 6.4.2009

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard rival submissions on both the pending

¶16

bail	application	s respectivel	y prefer	red	by		accused
no.	3 and	2. In all	four	accused	p	ersons	were
convicted	by	judgment and	order of	Se	ssions	Court	dt.
16.3.2008	and	since then	present	applic	ants,		accused
no.2	and 3	are in jail	custody.	Ea	rlier	another	bail
application	was	preferred by	all the		four		accused,
however	during	the argu	ments bail		applic	ation	for
present	accused	no. 2 and	3 was	not	pressed	and	as
such	this c	ourt earlier gran	ted bail	to	wo	men	accused
i.e.	accused	no. 1 and	4.	Thereaft	er pr	esent	two
separate	applica	tions came to	be f	iled.		Earlier	bail
application	no.	1089/08 of	accused	no.2	came	to	be

¶17

dismissed for default and was subsequently restored to

¶18

the file by order of this court dt. 1.12.2008.

¶19

-2-

¶20

. During the arguments it is submitted on behalf of applicants that bail application for accused no.2 is not pressed as the entire criminal appeal bearing no. 296/2008 is ready for hearing and as such the arguments will be advanced on merits of the judgment of conviction. So far as bail application of accused no. 3 i.e.application no. 657 of 2008 is concerned it is submitted that only the substantive evidence of PW2, sister of the deceased is held as against said accused no. 3 when admittedly said accused no. 3 was not residing in the family of accused no.2 and his deceased wife. It is submitted that the conviction of

¶21

present accused no. 3 appears to be only on the basis of statement of PW2.

¶22

. As against above arguments learned APP submitted that all the accused were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A r/w. section 34 of the IPC and they are sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years, for the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w section 34 of the IPC they are sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and for the offence punishable u/s 304-B r/w section 34 of the IPC and they are sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years. As such considering the evidence also that of PW2 Trial Court had convicted the present accused no.

¶23

-3-

¶24

3	also	and	maximum	imprison	ment	of 7	years	u/s	304-B
is	given.		It is	furt	her	submitted	t	hat	criminal
appeal	no.		296/2008	in	which	judgment	and	order	of
conviction		is	impugned	is	ready	for	final	hearing	and

¶25

as such there is nothing to allow the present bail

¶26

application on the grounds mentioned.

¶27

.	Cons	idering the	rival	s	ubmissions	and
considering	that	entire	criminal a	ppeal no.		296/2008
can be	disposed	of	after hearing	rival s	ubmissions	and
considering	the	grounds	mentioned	in	the	bail
application	in th	e opinio	n of this	court this	is	not
the case	in	which	the applicants	can be	released	on
bail during	the	pendency	of said	criminal	appeal	which

¶28

is to be taken in immediate proximity. Hence the

¶29

order:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

. Criminal bail applications no. 1089/2008 and

¶32

657/2008 stands dismissed.

¶33

. Upon request on behalf of accused, criminal

¶34

appeal no. 296/2008 is adjourned in next week.

¶35

(A.R. Joshi, J)

Umesh Vasudeo Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Vasudeo Gupta 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

Manubhai Mangaldas Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashwin Bhikhabhai Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yasin Sheku Nigewan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nazim Hassan Shamsu Zoha Rizvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaikrushna @ Kisan Chandiprasad Kandiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Gangaram Pilankar Vs the State of Maharashtra