Dismissed

Jayram Laxman Baswat v. the State of Maharsahtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2011APPA/130/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a bail application by a life convict whose appeal was admitted but not yet heard. The bench held premeditation and the applicant's short service period precluded bail, though a renewal right exists if the hearing is delayed past September.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant advised to renew request if appeal hearing is delayed past September 2011.

Jayram Laxman Baswat Vs the State of Maharsahtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 appa13011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2004

¶5

Jayram Laxman Baswat ...Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the Applicant

¶9

Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P., for the State.

¶10

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

¶11

A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

This is second application for bail preferred by the

¶14

applicant. He is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and is undergoing sentence to suffer imprisonment for life.

¶15

This application, however, is pressed on the sole ground that

¶16

the appeal preferred by the applicant against order of conviction has

¶17

2 appa13011

¶18

already been admitted. That pre-supposes that the applicant has made out formidable case for succeeding in the appeal. Further, it is unlikely that the appeal will be heard in the near future, coupled with the fact that the applicant has already undergone actual eight years and eight months of sentence period. On the above basis, it is submitted that keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab , reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 2147, as also the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. , reported in 2007 All MR (Cri) 1775 (S.C.), the applicant be released on bail.

¶19

It is also contended that this Court has been releasing similarly placed convicts in the past.

¶20

Having considered the submissions canvassed across the Bar, and keeping in mind the fact situation of the present case, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the applicant for grant of bail in this case. We have no difficulty in following the exposition in the case of Kashmira Singh (supra). However, in the present case, it is noticed that

¶21

the offence committed by the applicant has been held to be premeditated, which fact has been adverted to even in the order dated

¶22

3 appa13011

¶23

24th January, 2007 passed by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant. Besides, the appeals of convicts in jail have been treated as expedited category of cases. At present, Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2004 is already included in the Final Hearing Board covered by the said category of cases. The appeal preferred by the applicant is numbered 114 of 2004. In other words, it is not as if the appeal preferred by the applicant is unlikely to be heard by this Court in the near future.

¶24

Besides, in the present case, since the finding of guilt recorded against the applicant proceeds on the basis that the offence committed by the applicant is pre-meditated one, if the conviction of the applicant were to be eventually upheld by this Court, as per the Guidelines for premature release, the applicant would be required to undergo at least 22 years of imprisonment, including remission period. The applicant has so far undergone only eight years and eight months of sentence without remission. According to the counsel for the applicant, taking into account remission period, the applicant must have completed eleven years and four months of sentence.

¶25

Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the request for grant of bail, but, while disposing of

¶26

4 appa13011

¶27

this application, we make it clear that, if the appeal of the applicant is not taken up for hearing by the end of September, 2011, it will be open to the applicant to renew the request for grant of bail on the ground that he has already undergone substantial sentence period.

¶28

Application disposed of accordingly.

¶29

A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Jayram Laxman Baswat v. the State of Maharsahtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayram Laxman Baswat v. the State of Maharsahtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Shahista Sayed Haji Baitulla. Vs the Union of India.and Ors.

Kalim Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Vasant Salve and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Hon'Ble Supteme Court of India Vs the District and Sessions Judge,Pune and Ors.

Sanjay Arjun Pawar . Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Krishna Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra