Allowed

Nitin Laxman Bhangre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013APPA/125/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an Applicant's criminal application for suspension of substantive sentence and release on bail pending appeal. The court found significant evidentiary gaps, including lack of identification of alleged counterfeit papers and an expert report exonerating the accused.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; Applicant released on bail with PR bond of Rs. 20,000 and sureties, conditional on attending Colaba police station fortnightly.

Nitin Laxman Bhangre Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

PPD

32.APPA.125-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2013

¶6

NITIN LAXMAN BHANGRE ..APPLICANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

..RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. M.M. Khokhawala, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP, for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 08^th APRIL, 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

By this application, the applicant/accused seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending decision of the appeal. The applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 255, 258 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 63 of the Bombay Stamps Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life and imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine on the first two counts and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay fine.

¶12

With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP we have perused the findings recorded by the trial

1 / 3

32.APPA.125-13.doc

Court as well as the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined during the trial. Perusal of the deposition of the witnesses indicate that there is no evidence that the accused had counterfeited the stamp papers. Similarly there is no evidence that the stamp papers which were alleged to be counterfeited stamp papers were actually sold by the accused. The prosecution principally relied upon the evidence of PW-3 & PW-4 in respect of sale of the counterfeit stamp papers. The evidence of PW-3 would indicate that he has admitted that he had not gone for purchasing the stamp papers; while the evidence of PW-4 would indicate that he has admitted the possibility that the stamp papers may have been purchased by him from someone else. The counterfeit stamp papers alleged to have been sold to PW-3 & PW-4 by the applicant has also not been identified in the Court. The report of the handwriting expert completely exonerate the applicant as according to the report of the handwriting expert, no positive opinion could be given in respect of the handwriting of the applicant and the handwriting on the disputed stamp papers.

¶17

In the aforesaid set of the evidence, according to us, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by suspending substantive sentence. Additionally we find that the applicant was on bail during the trial. Accordingly this application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended and the applicant is released on bail on the applicant furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant shall attend the Colaba police station once

2 / 3

32.APPA.125-13.doc

in three months on first Saturday of the quarter between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 am. Breach of the aforesaid condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Application is allowed as indicated above.

¶22

(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)

¶23

3 / 3

Nitin Laxman Bhangre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Laxman Bhangre 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

Pappu @ Arif Md. Hanif Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Raghunath Ghute Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fakira Baluch @ Fakirlala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tulshiram @ Tilsa Ramcahndra Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asgar Kadar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Kishore Goradia Vs the State of Maharahtra