Allowed

Babasaheb Dhondiba Labade v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Aug 2012APPLN/3937/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a criminal application for bail. The court directed the applicant's release on bail pending the disposal of a criminal revision application challenging his convictions and sentences, noting he had previously been on bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail pending disposal of Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2012 upon filing fresh bonds.

Babasaheb Dhondiba Labade Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

crapst3937.12

¶2

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINALAPPLICATION ST. NO. 3937 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2012 [Babasaheb Dhondiba Labade vs The State of Maharashtra and anr.]

¶8

 _________________________________________________________________________________
 Office Notes, Office |
 Memoranda of Coram, |
 appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders
 orders or |
 directions and |
 Registrar's orders |
 _________________________________________________________________________________

¶9

Shri Amol S. Gandhi, advocate for the applicant Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1

¶10

CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.

¶11

DATED : 30th August, 2012.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. Applicant to get this application registered within two days.

¶14

¶15

crapst3937.12

¶16

Issue notices to the respondents.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for

¶18

respondent no.1.

¶19

This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) seeking bail during pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2012 suspending the substantive sentences imposed upon him.

¶20

It appears that the applicant was convicted for various offences, such as under Section 323, 324, 447, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to various sentences with fine, of which maximum substantive sentence is for the period of three months, by the judgment and order, dated 20.2.2008 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrigonda, in R.T.C. No. 12 of 2004.

¶21

¶22

crapst3937.12

¶23

The applicant challenged the said convictions and sentences by filing Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 24.8.2012, confirming the afore said convictions and sentences.

¶24

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of dismissal of the appeal, the applicant has preferred the accompanying Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2012 challenging the correctness and legality thereof, which is pending before this court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the fact that the applicant was on bail throughout the afore said both the proceedings and there is no grievance of the respondents that he misused the said liberty. It is also submitted that

¶26

crapst3937.12

¶27

¶28

the applicant has deposited the fine amount and further submitted that he is the sole earning member in the family. The maximum substantive sentence awarded to the applicant is for the period of three years, which is for the fixed period of limited duration and can be construed as short term sentence. Moreover, the accompanying Criminal Revision Application is yet to be admitted and same may not be taken up for final hearing in near future. Hence, present application deserves to be allowed.

¶29

In the result, present application is allowed and

¶30

it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was enlarged on bail earlier, but on execution of fresh bonds of the same amount suspending the substantive sentences imposed upon him during the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2012, on the condition that the applicant shall give attendance before the Incharge of police station concerned once in six months till the decision of

¶31

crapst3937.12

¶32

¶33

Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2012 and present application is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)

¶35

dbm/crapst3937.12

Babasaheb Dhondiba Labade v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Dhondiba Labade 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

Chandrakala Baliram Mundhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Someshwar Laxman Yeole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Shankar Somla Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ram Kisan Khedkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gajanan Vasant Dukale Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Parimandal) a.Bad and Ors.

Ashok Shridhar Yeole Vs Shri Gurudatta Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. Chalisgaon through Manager