Allowed

Arjun Arvind Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2013APPA/640/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Application allowed the suspension of the applicant's substantive sentence. The court granted bail on one PR Bond and one or two sureties, requiring monthly reporting to the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; applicant granted bail on PR Bond of Rs. 15,000 and two sureties in the like amount; directed to report to Sessions Court monthly.

Arjun Arvind Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Mhi 1

¶2

APPA-640-13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2013 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2013

¶6

Arjun Arvind Patil

¶7

... Applicant (Orig. accused No.1)

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sushrut Jadhwar,Advocate for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde,APP,for the respondent-State

¶11

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 19th July, 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal

¶15

Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of the substantive sentence. The present applicant is accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.515 of 2012. The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 394 read with Section 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months by the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions

¶16

Mhi 2 APPA-640-13.sxw

¶17

Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, vide judgment and order dated 17.4.2013.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and has not committed breach of any conditions imposed upon him and hence he would be entitled to the extension of the same relief during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

The learned APP has called for a report seeking information about the criminal antecedents of the applicant. The report is taken on record. It is stated in the report that the applicant herein has no criminal antecedents. The learned APP submits that the applicant was apprehended on the spot and taken to the Police Station. However, the report shows that when the co-accused had snatched the ornaments from the complainant and others were fleeing from the spot, the applicant had pelted a brick towards the rickshaw driver

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the evidence against the applicant is only to the extent that he was present on the spot and when others were fleeing, he had pelted a brick at the autorickshaw driver out of fear with an apprehension that he may be arrested along with the real miscreants. The learned APP submits that when the present applicant was taken to the police

¶21

Mhi 3 APPA-640-13.sxw

¶22

station, the complainant was present in the police station and had seen the present applicant and, therefore, the identification of the present applicant in the T.I. Parade would lose its significance.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that as on today, this Court is hearing Criminal Jail Appeals of the year 2007 and the present Appeal may not be taken up for hearing in the near future and he seeks suspension of the substantive sentence.

¶24

Taking into consideration the rival submissions, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(i) The application is allowed. The substantive sentence imposed upon

¶27

the applicant is hereby suspended. He be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall report to the Sessions Court at Sewree, Mumbai once in every month on the date as may be directed by that Court.

¶29

Mhi 4

¶30

APPA-640-13.sxw

¶31

(iii) On failure to attend the Sessions Court on any two consecutive dates, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶32

Application stands disposed of.

¶33

(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Arjun Arvind Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Arvind Patil 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

Latya Isam Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalit Popatlal Parekh Vs Vishvas Vasantrao Thorat and Anr.

Bst Textile Mills Private Limited Vs Bhutada Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mohammad Mohasin @ Natu Moin Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Kamlesh Satyaprakash Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Yashwantrao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra