Application for bail in Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2006 dismissed. Court noted an earlier bail application was rejected and barred reconsideration of merits. Requested expedition for appeal hearing under category convicts in jail pending minimum bail rule.
Application disposed; appeal listed for final hearing under category convicts in jail.
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.
appa801-10
1
agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.801 OF 2010
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1123 OF 2006
Samir Balasaheb Awati ..Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
..Respondent.
Mr.D.V. Sutar for the applicant. Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, & U.D. Salvi, JJ.
DATE : 8th September 2010.
P.C. :
2 appa801-10
considering the fact that he has already undergone five years of actual imprisonment. Even this submission does not commend to us. Inasmuch as, as per the present assignment all appeals pertaining to convicts in jail have been treated as expedited category and would get precedence over all other matters. Indeed it may take some time for the appeal filed by the applicant to reach for hearing. As of now, the appeals in the category of ‘convicts in jail’ pertaining to years 2002 and 2004 are already on board. The applicants request for release on bail can be considered only after he has undergone at least 50% of actual sentence period in jail and if the appeal cannot be taken up for hearing soon thereafter.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail given that his appeal is admitted but hearing is delayed and he has undergone partial sentence.
Samir Balasahev Awati
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. Khanwilkar
U.D. Salvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
