Allowed

Vicky Shankar Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Nov 2009APPLN/3938/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Bombay allowed a bail application filed by Vicky Shankar Kharat accused of offences under Sections 377, 504, and 506 IPC. There was delay in FIR filing due to victim discharge and pending forensic report. The Court deemed custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail with conditions, including restricted movement in Thane City.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Rs. 5,000 with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions restricting residence in Thane City and reporting to police.

Vicky Shankar Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3938 OF 2009

¶5

Vicky Shankar Kharat
vs.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶8

Mr.I.M. Khairdi for the Applicant.
Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State.

¶9

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

 DATED : NOVEMBER 26, 2009

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for

¶13

the State.

¶14

2The applicant has been arrested on 6th May,

¶15

2009 in connection with C.R.No.I-100/2009 for the

¶16

offence punishable under Sections 377, 504, 506 of

¶17

the IPC registered at Shreenagar Police Station.

¶18

Chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is 21
years of age.

¶19

¶20

3It is submitted that though the incident

¶21

took place on 26.4.2009, an FIR was lodged on 6th
May, 2009, therefore, there is delay in fling the
FIR.

¶22

4The learned APP submitted that the victim

¶23

was discharged on 2nd May, 2009 and therefore, the
FIR could not be lodged earlier. The report from the
Chemical Analyser also has not been received.

¶24

5Taking into consideration the young age of

¶25

the present applicant and the fact that there is
delay in filing the report, the custodial
interrogation of the applicant, in my view, is not
necessary, particularly when the investigation is
over and the chargesheet is filed.

¶26

6The applicant, therefore, be released on

¶27

bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount. He, however, shall not

¶28

¶29

enter the Thane City during the pendency of the
criminal case except for the purpose of attending
the Sessions Court after the matter is committed to

¶30

that Court. The applicant shall not try to contact
the victim or threaten the prosecution witnesses. If
any complaint is received against the applicant, the
prosecution may apply under Section 439 for
cancellation of bail. The applicant shall give his
new residential address before his release to the
Superintendent of Jail and thereafter, shall report
to the nearest police station from new residence
once in a month.

¶31

7The application is disposed of.

Vicky Shankar Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Shankar Kharat 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

Mukesh Gobindram Kimtani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Bimalkimtani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqbal Haider Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nanasaheb Shamrao Lavate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hemraj Dhanraj Gangurde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Pitambar Taware and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra