Allowed

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Oct 2010APPA/1276/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the applicants, original accused convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act under appeal, sought bail. The court noted their clean record, compliance with existing bail, and the short sentence to grant bail. An order was passed releasing them.

What did the court decide?

Applicants ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one or two sureties.

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

5b. cr appa 127610.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2010

¶5

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe & Anr

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

Vs

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. B.R. Patil i/b Mr. Majon Kadam for the Applicants

¶11

Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶13

DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

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

¶16

2. The applicant no. 1 i.e original accused nos. 1 has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. So also,

¶17

applicant no. 2 i.e original accused no. 2 has been
convicted under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d)(i) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal preferred by them
against the said order has been admitted. Now, the
applicants are seeking bail.

¶18

3. Learned advocate for the applicants stated that besides this case, the applicants have a clean record. He further

¶19

¶20

5b. cr appa 127610.doc

¶21

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. Moreover, it is seen that the sentence is
only for one year and the appeal is not likely to come up
for hearing in the near future. Thus, looking to the
above facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence, the order:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

1. Applicants- Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Shankar Pandurang Patil be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- [Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only ] each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount.

¶24

2. Application is allowed in above terms.

¶25

[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶26

¶27

5b. cr appa 127610.doc

¶28

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Anr. 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

Marico Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jalindar Nivrutti Hede Vs the State of Maharashtra

A. Nasar Cherukara Vs R.G. Gokhale and Anr.

Sudam Ganpat Doiphode Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhashrao Rambhau Gayake

Shyamrao Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra