Allowed

Aasef Mansab Pathan v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2011APPLN/4985/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by an appellant convicted of cheating under Section 417 IPC, the Bombay High Court allowed the application granting bail pending the hearing of the criminal appeal and suspended the substantive sentence imposed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; appellant released on bail pending hearing of criminal appeal with suspension of sentence; fresh bond executed.

Aasef Mansab Pathan Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

 crap4985.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4985 OF 2011 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 617 OF 2011

¶6

Aasef Mansab Pathan

¶7

...Applicant/Appellant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Shri Swapnil Rathi, advocate for applicant/appellant (orig.accused) Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent

¶12

CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.

¶13

DATED : 18th November, 2011

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

1 Heard Shri Swapnil Rathi, advocate for applicant/appellant (original accused) and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent.

¶16

2 At the request of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant,

¶17

leave to correct Sessions Trial number, granted.

¶18

2 crap4985.11

¶19

3 Issue notice to the respondent. Shri S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondent.

¶20

4 This is an application preferred by the applicant/appellant (original accused) seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him, challenging the judgment and order, dated 3.10.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2010, thereby convicting the applicant/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer further R.I. for one month.

¶21

5 The applicant has questioned the said conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2011 and same has been admitted by me today only by passing separate order therein, and there is no likelihood that the said appeal would be taken up for final hearing in near future. Moreover, it also appears that the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant is short term sentence and the applicant was on bail during the pendency of Trial and he has not misused said liberty granted to him. Moreover, the applicant has deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court. Besides, the applicant was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court after conviction till the appeal period is over. Hence,, present application

¶22

3 crap4985.11

¶23

deserves to be allowed.

¶24

6 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him, on the same terms and conditions, but on execution on fresh bond of the said amount and present application is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.

¶26

dbm/crap4985.11

Aasef Mansab Pathan v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasef Mansab Pathan v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

The Aurangabad Peoples Co. Op Bank Ltd. Aurangabad through Authorised Officer Vs Ramkumar Kisanlal Dongre

The State of Mah Vs Arun Jabaji Mehetre

The State of Mah Thr. Veergaon P.S. Vs Raosaheb Tukaram Gavade and Anr.

The State of Mah Thr. Pp Vs Kundan Desraj Agrawal

Vasant Janku Mane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Chhabildas Chaudhari and Anr. Vs the State of Mah