Allowed

Sachine Lahu Bhillre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 May 2012BA/576/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application for applicant held in custody since August 2010. Court observed parity with a co-accused already granted bail and noted sufficient time elapsed since applicant's previous rejected application.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety on reporting condition to Kharghar Police Station.

Sachine Lahu Bhillre Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

BA 576/12

¶2

AAB

¶3

.. 1 ..

¶4

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

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2012

¶6

Sachine Lahu Bhillre ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.

¶7

Mr Vilas N. Mali, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr J.P. Kharge, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : A.M.THIPSAY, J. DATED : 7^th May, 2012.

¶9

P.C

¶10

1 Heard.

¶11

2 Undoubtedly, a prima facie case exists against the Applicant. However, the Applicant is in custody since 19/08/2010. The bail application is pressed mainly on the ground that the coaccused Sachin Gaikwad to whom a similar role has been attributed has already been released on bail by this Court ( B.A.No.1135 of 2011 decided on 26/08/2011).

¶12

3 It appears that another accused Rajesh Yadav in this case was also released on bail by an order dated 10/02/2012 (Cri. B.A.No.178 of 2012) (Coram : A.V. Nirgude, J).

¶13

.. 2 .. BA 576/12

¶14

AAB

¶15

4 The bail application of one of the accused Rakesh Baban Rathod was rejected by this Court (B.A.No.48 of 2012 decided on 09/04/2012). However, the case against the said accused was thought to be quite different than the case of other accused who were granted bail as the material in the chargesheet indicated that he was caught on the spot and was found in possession of the robbed property i.e. gold ornaments worth Rs.1,16,00,000/ and also 10 cartridges. The Applicant had previously applied for bail but it was not granted. That order was passed on 1/11/2011.

¶16

5 Sufficient time has elapsed even after the rejection of the said previous application of the applicant.

¶17

6 The trial has still not commenced. I am informed that it is only after the directions were given by this Court while rejecting the bail application filed by the coaccused Rakesh Baban Rathod that the charge has been framed. Mr Kharge submits that since trial has been ordered to be expeditiously held, the Applicant may not be released on bail at this stage. However, I find that his case is on par that of with the coaccused Sachin Gaikwad who has been released on bail on 26/08/2011 itself.

¶18

7 In these circumstances and considering the period already

¶19

spent in custody by the Applicant, I am inclined to release him on bail.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Application is allowed.

¶22

Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one surety in like amount on condition that the applicant shall report to the

¶23

BA 576/12

¶24

AAB

¶25

.. 3 ..

¶26

Kharghar Police Station on every Monday and every Friday between 5 pm to 7 pm till the disposal of the case against him.

¶27

( A.M.Thipsay, J.)

Sachine Lahu Bhillre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachine Lahu Bhillre 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Singh Kalusingh Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Dukhi Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Sakharam Mohandule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lakhan @ Baba Yuvraj Gawali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Koushik Chakrabarti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Renuka Manohar Jaukani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra