Partly allowed

Prakash Narayan Swami v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2013APPP/272/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail matter, the High Court held that the applicant failed to comply with the condition of depositing security. While granting three days to surrender due to personal appearance in court, the court rejected the bail application and directed surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected. Applicant granted three days to surrender himself to the Judicial Magistrate, Khalapur, on pain of arrest.

Prakash Narayan Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

919-APPP-272-2013-BA-1812-2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2011

¶5

PRAKASH NARAYAN SWAMY )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Altaf Khan i/b. Mrs.Anjali Awasthi Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mrs.S.D.Shinde APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.Prakash Narayan Swamy – Applicant – present in the court.

¶11

Mr.S.M.Dhawale, A.P.I., EOW (Admn) and Mr.Vaibhav Patil, A.P.I., Khalapur Police Station, present in court.

¶12

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 19^th JULY, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 Heard Mr.Altaf Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mrs.S.D.Shinde, the learned APP for the State.

¶15

2 The applicant was granted temporary bail for a period of six weeks by an order dated 18.9.2012 passed by this court (Coram : R.C.Chavan, J.). The temporary bail was granted on the condition that the applicant should deposit a sum of Rs.5 Lac in the trial court, within

¶16

avk 1/3

¶17

919-APPP-272-2013-BA-1812-2011

¶18

a period of six weeks from the date of the said order, and that, he should file an undertaking as to how he proposes to repay the remaining amount. The applicant, thereafter, deposited the sum of Rs.5 Lac as ordered, and also submitted an undertaking saying that he would mortgage the lands belonging to his friends and well-wishers, for which they have no objection, and that, based on such mortgage, he would secure a loan and repay the entire amount, allegedly earned by him, by committing the offence in question.

¶19

3 However, nothing further appears to have been done by the applicant thereafter. He submitted that he had made an application for loan to one Royal Financial Services, but on inquiry made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on the directions of this court, it appears that the said Royal Financial Services, is actually run by a single person, who acts as a broker for the purpose of securing loan. So far, no application for loan has been made by the applicant to any Financial institution, and no Power of attorney has been executed by any of the owners of the land, which the applicant says he would mortgage and raise the amount.

¶20

4 The applicant, however, was remaining present before the court on all the dates of hearing, and therefore, some latitude was given to him and the temporary bail was extended from time to time.

¶21

5 On 17.6.2013, the applicant undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.15 Lac, within a period of three weeks, and therefore, temporary bail was extended till 8.7.2013.

¶22

avk 2/3

¶23

919-APPP-272-2013-BA-1812-2011

¶24

6 On 8.7.2013, however, the applicant expressed his inability to comply with the order requiring him to deposit an amount of Rs.15 Lac within the stipulated time, but further undertook to deposit Rs.15 Lac, within a week thereafter. Time was granted to the applicant till 16.7.2013 and the temporary bail period was extended till then.

¶25

7 On 17.7.2013, the applicant was directed to deposit atleast an amount of Rs.5 Lac by today, and the bail period was extended till today.

¶26

8 Today, the applicant states that he is unable to deposit even this much amount. Considering this, I am not inclined to extend the bail period any further. However, on the prayer of the applicant made by him before this court in person, and keeping in mind that he has been attending the court during the pendency of the present application, he is being granted time of three days to surrender himself.

¶27

9 The application is rejected.

¶28

10 The applicant shall surrender himself before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khalapur, District Raigad, by 24.7.2013.

¶29

11 The learned Magistrate shall take the applicant in custody and report compliance to this court.

¶30

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶31

avk 3/3

Prakash Narayan Swami v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Narayan Swami 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Nazmul Hasan Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Merei Khan Ghodaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daulatsahab @ Daulu Imamsahab Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umaima K. Chitalwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S True Finess (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangur Nagar Police Station and Ors.