Allowed

Vasant Dnyanoba @ Dnyanu Pukale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Sept 2010APPA/655/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal applicants sought modification of a bail condition restricting them from entering Taluka Sangola. The High Court found no breach of previous conditions and allowed the application, permitting applicants to visit the taluka individually while adhering to other existing bail terms.

What did the court decide?

Bail condition requiring non-entry into Taluka Sangola was recalled; applicants permitted to visit the area individually on alternate weeks subject to other bail conditions.

Vasant Dnyanoba @ Dnyanu Pukale and Anr. Vs the State… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

14 appa.655.10

ndm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 655 OF 2010

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2006

¶8

Vasant Dyanoba @ dnyanu pukale and anr. ... Applicants Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the Applicants.

¶12

Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/ State.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 03rd September, 2010.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2 The learned APP requested for sometime to take instructions. We noticed from the order-sheet that the matter has been adjourned in the past on more than one occasion to enable the Public Prosecutor to take instructions. It is therefore, not possible to accede to the request of the learned APP for further time. The Respondent has failed to file any reply or to place on record any adverse report against the Applicants. We would therefore, proceed on the basis of the material

14 appa.655.10

available on record.

3 By this application, the Applicants pray for modification of bail condition. The Applicants were released on bail in terms of order dated 28th June, 2008. The Court however, imposed following condition:

¶21

“5. The application of the applicants is allowed. The applicants be released on P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. The applicants shall not enter Taluka Sangola during the pendency of the appeal. The applicants shall give their address to the concerned police station and shall also mark their presence once in a month to the nearest police station till the Appeal is disposed of. Their substantive sentence is suspended pending the Appeal. Fine, if any, to be paid before their release on bail.” (emphasis supplied)

¶22

4 Later on, one of the Applicants moved for modification of the said condition by way of Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2007. The same was allowed and the above condition was modified in the following terms vide order dated 12th March, 2007.

¶23

“2. Considering the prayer, We modify the earlier order dated 28th June 2006 and permit Applicant No.1 Vasant Dnyanoba @ Dnyanu Pukale to enter Taluka Sangola and go to his village on each Friday,

¶24

¶25

14 appa.655.10

¶26

Saturday and Sunday and then remove himself out of the jurisdiction of Taluka Sangola before 6.00 p.m. of each Sunday. While at his village, Applicant No.1 should not try to contact any of the witnesses or intimidate them in any manner whatsoever. This application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms .”

¶27

5 Thereafter, other Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 719 of 2008 praying for modification of the above condition. Once again after considering all aspects of the matter, this Court was pleased to modify the bail condition vide order dated 15th July, 2010 on the following terms.

¶28

“5 Both the Applicants are permitted to visit their village in the following manner.

¶29

After the first Applicant visits the village as stated in the order dated 12th March, 2007, in the next week the 2nd Applicant will visit the village as per the same order. Both the Applicants shall not visit the village together. This pattern will be followed till such time as the appeal is heard and finally disposed of or otherwise modified by this court. Considerations imposed by this court vide order dated 12th March, 2007 shall continue to operate.”

¶30

6 There is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicants have breached any of the conditions specified on the earlier occasion.

¶31

The Applicants are on bail since June, 2006 and they have abided by all the conditions specified by this Court from time to time. In the

¶32

¶33

14 appa.655.10

¶34

circumstances and in the interest of justice, we have no hesitation in allowing this application by recalling the condition placed against the Applicants from entering Taluka Sangola during the pendency of the appeal as well as the subsequent modification thereof. In other words, the Applicants will be free to enter Taluka Sangola during the bail period. However, they will have to comply with other conditions specified by this Court vide order dated 28th June, 2006, to avail of bail facility.

¶35

7 Application allowed on the above terms.

¶36

[ U.D. SALVI, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]

Vasant Dnyanoba @ Dnyanu Pukale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Dnyanoba @ Dnyanu Pukale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Shavaru Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balasaheb Vishwanath Kandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Apoorva Prashant Hiray Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Kisan Gadgule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalinder Ajitsingh Kalyani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhikaji Dattatray Rajole Vs the State of Maharashtra