Allowed

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Feb 2013APPLN/546/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in a 1994 case. The court held that denying bail would amount to punishment before trial given prosecution delays. Bail was secured via a bond with sureties and compelled appearance at the police station every fifth day.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with Rs.1,00,000/- bond, one surety for same amount, and required to appear at local police station every fifth day.

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.546 OF 2013

¶3

Shaikh Shakeer s/o Shaikh Babu Age 47 years, Occu.Business, R/o Dewas, Madhya Pradesh

¶4

..Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through In charge Officer, Basmatnagar Police Station, Taluka Basmat, Dist.Hingoli

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Mr Sandip R.Andhale, Advocate holding for Mr P.R.Katneshwar, Advocate for applicant Mr D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for respondent

¶9

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶10

DATE : 25th February 2013

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent.

¶13

The applicant, who is in custody since 15th December 2012, has prayed for bail. The applicant was initially arrested by Basmat Police Station in the year 1994 in connection with C.R.No.50/1994 registered with the said Police Station for offence under Sections 420, 406 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the applicant was released on bail by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat vide order dated 14th September 1994. It appears that thereafter Basmat Police Station had filed the charge-sheet in the said Court on 4th October 1996. It is not in

¶14

2 Cri.Appln.546/2013

¶15

dispute that thereafter initially the summons were issued to the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that no summons was served upon him. Thereafter in execution of warrant issued by the said Court, the applicant was arrested on 15th December 2013 at his native place at Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. The applicant was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat. He prayed for the bail, however, the same was rejected for amongst the other ground of case against him being of the year 1994. The applicant thereafter approached the Court of Sessions, Basmat, however, was not successful and the application for bail made by him came to be rejected on 17th January 2013. Thereafter, the applicant has approached his Court.

¶16

Mr Sandip Andhale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant urged that as such there was no default on the part of the applicant in attending the Court, warranting issuance of a warrant against him. It is urged that the applicant did not attend the said Court, as no date of hearing of the said case being fixed was intimated to him, either by serving the notice or by serving the summons. It is contended that even the record of the said case reveals that the summons issued to the applicant had not returned. It was urged that the service of warrant upon the applicant reveals that he was residing at a place given by him in the application, while obtaining the bail from the Court in the year 1994. It is thus contended that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail and

¶17

3 Cri.Appln.546/2013

¶18

the same cannot be denied on the count of the case being of year 1994. It is further contended that there are four more other accused in the said case and all of them are absconding and as such there is very much less likelihood that the investigating agency would be able to nab them and bring them before the Court enabling the Court to proceed with the case. It was urged that merely because the case is of year 1994, but the prosecution is unable to proceed with the said case, detaining the applicant on the said count would be a grave injustice. It is contended that delay, if any, occurred in the said case is not due to any act committed by the applicant and hence, his prayer for bail be considered on such terms and conditions, as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court.

¶19

Mr D.V.Tele, learned A.P.P. though vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the count of the case being of year 1994, was unable to tell the date or the period by which the investigating agency would be able to nab the other absconding accused and would be proceed with the case. It is also informed that there are 18 witnesses and as such the same is likely to consume appreciable time for completion of the trial.

¶20

In the aforesaid premises and apparently, hardly there is any material to come to the conclusion that the applicant was responsible for causing delay of the trial against him, his prayer for

¶21

4 Cri.Appln.546/2013

¶22

bail deserves consideration. The same deserves consideration, as the prosecution is not able to proceed with the said case in immediate future and in the said circumstances, denying the bail to the applicant would amount to a punishment before the trial. However, considering the place from which the applicant hails, no effort made by him since 1994 to ascertain the date in the case and appear before the Court, warrants seeking heavy bail and imposing appropriate condition to ensure his presence in future and to avoid delaying the trial due to non-availability of the applicant.

¶23

The applicant-accused is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) with one or more local sureties to make the like amount. The applicant shall attend the local Police Station of the area in which he is residing on every fifth day of the month until further orders. The concerned Police Station to intimate the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Basmat, District Hingoli in event of any default committed by the applicant in giving such attendance.

¶24

7. Application stands disposed of.

¶25

( P.D. KODE, J.)

¶26

vvr/546.13criappln

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Shakeer Shaikh Babu 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

Prabhakar Pandurang Chaudhari Vs the State of Mah

Shankar Sakharam Garde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pandurang Kashiba Divase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Asaram Pandit and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Satish Vasant Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah

Bharatabai Keshavrao Bhalerao Vs Pravin Narayan Kadam and Others