Partly allowed

Popat Shivaji Hajare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2012APPA/937/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for bail and suspension of sentence was filed by appellants convicted under Section 307 IPC. The High Court denied bail to one appellant due to the gravity of injuries caused but granted bail to the second appellant, Avinash Popat Hajare, considering the nature of the injury, his bail status, and age.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellant Avinash Popat Hajare on furnishing fresh bonds in the same amount and on the same terms as during trial; bail refused regarding appellant Popat Shivaji Hajare.

Popat Shivaji Hajare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

APPA 937 OF 2012

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL AP[PLICATION LNO.937 OF 2012 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.617 OF 2012

¶5

Popat Shivaji Hajare

¶6

Avinash Popat Hajare .. Applicants.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

Mr. Harshad Nimbalkar, with Mr. V.V. Purwant, and Sachin Deokar for the Applicants

¶10

Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the Respondent - State

¶11

CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J.

¶12

DATE : 19th July, 2012

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This is an application for bail and suspension of sentence by appellants, who have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with fine Rs.2,000/-. Both the appellants were on bail through the trial. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that co-accused Chandrakant Hajare was also alleged to have given blow of knife on the stomach of the victim. However, Doctor has found two injuries. Chandrakant has been acquitted by the trial Court. He submits

¶15

page 1 of 2

¶16

APPA 937 OF 2012

¶17

that the applicants were on bail through out the trial and have not abused their liberty. He submits that since appeal will take time for hearing, the applicants, be admitted to bail.

¶18

I have gone through the evidence tendered. The Operation Notes show that the victim had injury which had cut on pericardium lacerated right ventricle. These injuries were attributed to appellant Popat and therefore, there is no question of appellant Popat being admitting to bail. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks that he is not pressing the application in respect of appellant Popat.

¶19

As far as the appellant Avinash is concerned, since the blow inflicted by him is not shown to have been deep and since he was on bail, as also considering the age and nature of sentence imposed upon him, the appellant No.2 Avinash Popat be released on bail on his furnishing fresh bonds in the same amount and on the same terms on which he was on bail through out the trial .

¶20

page 2 of 2

Popat Shivaji Hajare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Popat Shivaji Hajare 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

Avinash Mahadeo Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ghanshyam Mohanlal Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Avinash Mahadeo Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suman Shivaji Nimbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Balasaheb Sohani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Shivaji Hajare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra