Allowed

Faiyaz Ahmed Chand Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jun 2011BA/403/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On bail application regarding offences under IPC 399, 400, and 402, the court granted bail citing significant delay in trial commencement despite an order for expedited conclusion. The court also directed inquiry into the Trial Court's inaction.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in like amount. Report called from Trial Court regarding delay.

Faiyaz Ahmed Chand Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2011)

BA 403.11.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 403 OF 2011

¶6

Faiyaz Ahmed Chand Khan.

¶7

... Applicant.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra.

¶10

... Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Arfan Sait for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State. Mr. R.V. Igwe, Mira Road, Police Station.

¶12

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J.

¶13

DATED : 17^th JUNE 2011.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Since the present bail application was sent by the Applicant, through Jail, which was not accompanied by a copy of the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer had been directed to remain present alongwith the copy of the chargesheet. Today, the Investigating Officer from the Mira Road Police Station is present and has produced the copy of the charge-sheet.

¶17

I have glanced through the charge-sheet. I have seen the FIR. The allegation is that the Applicant and four others

¶18

BA 403.11.sxw

¶19

¶20

were found to be in possession of some gold ornaments worth about Rs.3,50,000/-, cash of Rs.1,65,000/-, silver ornaments worth Rs.22,000/-, 5 mobile telephones, some wrist watches, some other ornaments and weapons. The Applicant and the others are being prosecuted on the allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 399 of I.P.C., 400 of I.P.C. and 402 of I.P.C.

¶21

The Applicant is in custody since 24.7.2008. The trial has not yet commenced. In fact, it is on this ground viz., the delay in the disposal of the case, that the Applicant is seeking bail.

¶22

I find that the Applicant had previously also made an application for bail, which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 15^th April 2010. From the order, it appears that a statement was made before the Court by the leaned APP that charge-sheet had already been filed. The Court, therefore, ordered the trials to be expedited. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from that date i.e. 15^th April 2010.

¶23

I am now informed that this particular trial has not even commenced, inspite of the said order.

¶24

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the Applicant should be released on bail.

¶25

BA 403.11.sxw

¶26

¶27

The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in like amount.

¶28

It is also necessary to call for a report from the Trial Court, as to the circumstances in which the trial could not even commence, within the period in which it was directed to be concluded. The Registrar (Judicial) shall call for a report from the Trial Court as aforesaid.

¶29

The Registrar (Judicial) shall send a copy of this order to the Thane Central Prison for delivering it to the Applicant, who has lodged this application, through Jail.

¶30

The Charge-sheet is read and returned to the learned APP, with a direction to provide the copy of the FIR, during the course of the day.

¶31

(A.M. THIPSAY,J.)

Faiyaz Ahmed Chand Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiyaz Ahmed Chand Khan 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

Kazi Dawood Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Beg Mustaq Beg Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munawar @ Salman Firoz Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikant @ Tatya @ Vishal Madhavrao Sonavane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahahnawaz Mohammed Shahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Bhairu Waskar Vs the State of Maharashtra