Allowed

Arun Deo Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Aug 2013APPP/298/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought condonation for non-attendance at the Registrar's office from April 1 to April 30, 2009. The High Court granted the application, noting the applicant was under sentence but had a bail order requiring fortnightly reporting only during the pendency of his Central Government appeal.

What did the court decide?

The non-reporting of the applicant for the period from 1st April 2009 to 30th April 2009 is condoned.

Arun Deo Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

902-appp.298.2009.doc

¶3

Nsc.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2009

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.284 of 1999

¶8

Arun Deo Singh ...Applicant. v/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents.

¶10

Ms.Nasreen Ayubi, for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

AUGUST 2, 2013.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By this application, the applicant seeks

¶15

condonation for not attending the office of the Registrar

¶16

(Appellate Side), Bombay for the period from 1st April, 2009

¶17

to 15th April, 2009 and from 16th April, 2009 to 30th April,

¶18

¶19

¶20

902-appp.298.2009.doc

¶21

It appears that the applicant had been convicted in

¶22

the Court Marshall proceedings and an Appeal had been preferred by the applicant before the Central Government. During the pendency of the Appeal, the applicant filed Criminal Application No.284 of 1999 through jail, praying for suspension of the sentence and for his release on bail. The Division Bench of this Court accordingly suspended the sentence and directed that the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount on the condition that the applicant reports to the Registrar (A.S), Bombay once a fortnight. The applicant was further directed to report for a period of six weeks after the service of the order in the Appeal, in the event the same was adverse to him.

¶23

It further appears that the Appeal filed by the applicant was rejected on 20th July, 1999. When the matter was on board before the Court on 15th March, 2010 the learned counsel representing the Union of India had stated before the Court that the applicant is undergoing sentence

¶24

¶25

902-appp.298.2009.doc

¶26

for the offence publishable under Section 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the order of this Court was explicit that the order of bail and the condition requiring the applicant to attend the office of the Registrar (A.S), Bombay was to operate during the pendency of the Appeal before the Central Government, the applicant was not required to attend the office of the Registrar after the dismissal of the Appeal except for a period of six weeks after the dismissal was communicated to him.

¶27

Since the applicant has requested for condoning his non-reporting for the period before the dismissal of the Appeal, we allow this application and condone the nonreporting of the applicant for the period from 1st April, 2009 to 15th April, 2009 and from 16th April, 2009 to 30th April, 2009.

¶28

5. Application is allowed as indicated above.

¶29

(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Arun Deo Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Deo Singh 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

Sanjay Tarasingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Satish Yashwant Patil and Ors.

Kadirawan Silvaraj Devendra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Ganpat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Neeta Anandrao Nikam and Ors. Vs Jagdish Dinkar Jagtap and Ors.

Dhanaji Shantaram Bajage Vs the State of Maharashtra