Criminal appeal regarding denied set off for time spent in custody pending trial. The High Court granted set off under Section 428 of CrPC after establishing the applicant was arrested but never released on bail.
Entitlement to set off under Section 428 of CrPC for the period from 11/2/2006 to 26/6/2008.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application 608 of 2009
Vijay H. Mangela v/s. State of Maharashtra
....Applicant
....Respondents
None for the applicant. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for the State.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
DATED:- November 09, 2009.
P.C.
Heard Counsel for the State.
raised in this application is to issue appropriate order so as to give set off to the applicant under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State has filed affidavit of Suresh Chintaman Manore, the Police Sub-Inspector attached to Virar Police station dated 9/11/2009. It is not in dispute that the applicant is convicted in connection with CR No. I-38/2006 under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai dated 26/6/2008. The
2
Judgment, however, makes no reference to the relevant facts to consider the relief of set off claimed by the applicant. These facts have now been stated in the affidavit of the Police Inspector filed before this Court. It is noticed that applicant was arrested on 11/2/2006 and came to be convicted for stated offence on 26/6/2008. Further, although the affidavit filed before this Court does not record the fact that the accused never availed of bail, PSI who has filed the affidavit is present in Court. He states that from his record it is noticed that applicant was never released on bail during the trial after his arrest on 11/2/2006. In this view of the matter, the applicant would be entitled for relief as claimed. The Court below has glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter while pronouncing the impugned Judgment.
did not appear to espouse the cause of applicant though expected to do so.
3
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to set off under Section 428 of CrPC for the period spent in custody pending trial after conviction.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijay H. Mangela
State of Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
