Allowed

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2010APPA/492/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim bail to appellants convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to five years RI. They were released on execution of a bond with sureties and reporting conditions pending final hearing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of Personal Bond of Rs. 5000/- each with two sureties and reporting to police station once a month.

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

Crim.Appln. No.492/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 492 OF 2010 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2010

¶7

1) Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale,
2) Mahesh Murlidhar Bhosale,
3) Pintu Bana Pawar,
4) Birappa Chandu Shinde,
5) Netaji Chandu Shinde,
6) Chandu Vishwambhar Shinde,
7) Mallinath Vishwambhar Shinde,
8) Sudhakar Shivdas Shinde,
9) Sukha Shinde,
10)Nagnath Chandu Shinde...Applicants
vs.
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent
Mr.V.V. Purwant for the Applicants.
Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for the State.

¶8

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
 DATED : JULY 23, 2010
P.C. :-

¶9

1Heard Counsel for the applicants and APP

¶10

for the State.

¶11

2 Crim.Appln. No.492/2010

¶12

2The applicants have been convicted for the

¶13

offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and

¶14

sentenced to suffer RI for five years. The
applicants have already undergone six months of the
sentence. The applicants were on bail during trial.

¶15

3The learned APP for the State submits there

¶16

are some antecedents against some of the applicants.

¶17

4In my view, taking into consideration the
sentence awarded by the Sessions Court and the fact
that the appeal may not immediately reach for final
hearing in the near future, the applicants need not
be kept in jail indefinitely during the pendency of
the appeal, particularly, if the Court prima facie
comes to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by

¶18

the prosecution is not sufficient to establish the
charges levelled against them.

¶19

5The applicants, therefore, be released on

¶20

3 Crim.Appln. No.492/2010

¶21

bail on execution of P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
5000/- each with one or two sureties each in the
like amount. The applicants shall report to the

¶22

concerned police station once in a month.

¶23

6Application is disposed of.

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Sudhakar Balkawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samad Shoib Khan Vs State of Mah and Anr.

Jayshankar Faujdar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mithun @ Nitin Zumbar Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Tukaram Tonde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Shanker Dalvi Vs Jaslok Hospital and Ors.