Allowed

Rudraji Pandurang Kadekar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012APPLN/4135/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowed a bail application filed by four accused persons convicted under IPC Sections 498A and 306. The court granted bail on a joint caution bond during the pendency of the criminal revision petition against their conviction. This is a bail order only.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety of like amount.

Rudraji Pandurang Kadekar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Application No. 4135 / 2012

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Application No. 4135 of 2012 (In Criminal Revision Application No. 143 of 2012)

¶4

Rudraji s/o. Pandurang Kadekar, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Wadgaon, Taluka : Kalamnuri, District : Hingoli.

¶5

Pandurang s/o. Gyanba Kadekar, Age : 80 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. As above.

¶6

Vijay s/o. Pandurang Kadekar, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. as above.

¶7

Prayagbai w/o. Pandurang Kadekar, Age : 78 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. [All applicants are in jail at present] .. Applicants.

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Kalamnuri, District : Hingoli. .. Respondent.

¶10

(2) Cri. Application No. 4135 / 2012

¶11

Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶12

Mr. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶14

DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER 2012

¶15

COURT'S ORDER :

¶16

Heard Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi for the applicants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent.

¶17

Issue notice to the respondent.

¶18

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent.

¶19

This is an application preferred by the applicant nos.1 to 4 (original accused) seeking bail during the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. 143 of 2012. It appears that the applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, and they were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 read

¶20

(3) Cri. Application No. 4135 / 2012

¶21

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Trial No. 11/2007, vide judgment and order dated 2nd April 2008. Being aggrieved, the applicants had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 13/2008 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, but the said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, on 6-9-2012, thereby confirming the conviction and sentences imposed upon the applicants. Hence, the applicants have preferred accompanying Criminal Revision Application and challenged the correctness and legality of the said conviction and sentence, and the confirmation thereof, and the said Revision Application has been admitted by this Court, and the same is pending for final hearing.

¶22

Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi appearing for the applicants invited my attention to the fact that the applicants were on bail throughout aforesaid both the proceedings i.e. trial and the first appeal, and it is not grievance of the respondent that they misused the said liberty. Learned Advocate for the applicants also submitted that the applicants have already deposited the fine amount before learned trial court. He also canvassed that the maximum substantive sentence awarded to the applicants is for a period of 7 years which is for a fixed period of limited duration, which can be construed as short term sentence relying upon judicial pronouncements of Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others Vs. State of Gujarat , reported at (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 421 , and in the case of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. , reported at (2001) 9 Supreme Court Case 211.

¶23

Cri. Application No. 4135 / 2012

¶24

He further submitted that there is no possibility that accompanying Criminal Revision Application may be taken up for final hearing in the near future. Hence, learned Advocate for the applicants urged that the applicants be enlarged on bail during pendency of the said Criminal Revision Application.

¶25

In so far as merits of the matter are concerned, learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out that the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses to substantiate charges levelled against the applicants, whereas the defence has examined two witnesses. It is apparent from the evidence that the accused no.1 Rudraji married with the victim girl Vimal about 15 years back and she met with death by falling in the well. There are allegations in the testimonies of the complainant i.e. Pralhad, brother of the victim and PW 4 Anusayabai, mother of the victim, in respect of illtreatment meted out to the victim girl. But apparently, the said allegations are short of ingredients required under Section 107 of IPC, and consequently, under Section 306 of IPC, and therefore, he submitted that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

¶26

Moreover, learned Advocate for the applicants also pointed out that age of applicant no.2 Pandurang is 80 years; applicant no.4 Prayagbai is of 78 years, and applicant no.3 Vijay is fully handicapped person and photo copy of medical certificate in respect of applicant no.3 Vijay is annexed with the present application at Exhibit "A".

¶27

Besides, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that

¶28

(5) Cri. Application No. 4135 / 2012

¶29

the applicants were taken into custody after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal and they are in custody presently.

¶30

In the circumstances, applicants have made out a case for grant of bail, and the present Application deserves to be allowed.

¶31

In the result, present Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant nos.1 to 4, namely, Rudraji s/o. Pandurang Kadekar, Pandurang s/o. Gyanba Kadekar, Vijay s/o. Pandurang Kadekar, and Prayagbai w/o. Pandurang Kadekar, respectively, be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount, by each of them, during pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. 143 of 2012, suspending the substantive sentences imposed upon them, on condition that they shall report to incharge of the concerned Police Station once in six months till disposal of the said Criminal Revision Application, and the present Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE)

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

bgp/ka4135

Rudraji Pandurang Kadekar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudraji Pandurang Kadekar and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Ramkrushna Lokhande Vs Miyasaheb Gramin Bigarsheti Sah. Patsanstha Ltd., Taklimiya

Machindra Waman Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Chandrashekhar Bapurao Birajdar and Ors.

Shaikh Noor Shaikh Nanhu Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nivrutti Pralhad Amrutkar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pralhad Babanrao Thombre Vs the State of Mah