Allowed

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Oct 2010APPA/1239/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Section 439CrPC, the High Court granted bail to six applicants convicted under IPC Section 304 Part II during appeal, considering their clean record, bail during trial, and duration of custody against a maximum five-year sentence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail in sum of Rs. 30,000 each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount to report to police once in fortnight till disposal of appeal.

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

31b. cr appa 1239-10.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1239 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2010

¶5

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar & Ors

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

Vs

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. V.V. Purwant for the Applicants

¶11

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶13

DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants-original accused nos.2 to 6 and 9 and learned APP for the State.

¶16

2. The applicants have been convicted mainly under Section 304 Part II of IPC. The appeal preferred by them against the said order has been admitted. Now, the applicants are seeking bail.

¶17

3. Learned advocate for the applicants stated that besides this case, the applicants have a clean record. He further stated that the applicants were on bail during the trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. Both these statements have not been controverted by learned APP.

¶18

¶19

31b. cr appa 1239-10.doc

¶20

4. Learned advocate for the applicants further submitted that applicant no.2 Narayan, applicant no. 4 Sudarshan and applicant no. 3 Kailash have been in custody for three years, applicant no. 1 Samadhan and applicant no. 6 Pratap have been in custody for 13 months and applicant no. 5 Pratap has been in custody for 8 months. He pointed out that the maximum sentence imposed on the applicants is five years, hence, looking to the period of custody undergone by them, the applicants may be granted bail.

¶21

5. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Hence, the order:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

1.Applicants i.e Samadhan Navnath Chandankar, Narayan
Bibhishan Chandankar, Kailash Narayan Chandankar,
Sudarshan Bibhishan Chandankar, Pratap Bibhishan
Chandankar and Chandrakant Navnath Chandankar be
released on bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- [Rs.
Thirty Thousand Only ] each with one or two sureties
to make up the said amount. The Applicant shall
report to the Tembhurni Police Station once in a
fortnight till disposal of the appeal.

¶24

2. Application is allowed in above terms.

¶25

¶26

31b. cr appa 1239-10.doc

¶27

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. 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

Aalia Akbar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Krishnant Khade

Aalia Akbar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Jairam Keni Vs Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors.