Allowed

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jun 2013BA/180/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application in a cheque dishonour case, the High Court of Bombay granted bail to an accused in custody for over two years six months, noting his less active role after witnesses examined pointed to his co-accused spouse as the primary respondent.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BA-180.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2013

¶6

HITESH JAYSUKHLAL DOSHI .. APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the State

¶11

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 10/06/2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This is an application for bail, received from prison.

¶14

Since the application was received from prison, an advocate, to prosecute the application, was appointed under the free legal aid scheme. However, in spite of repeated calls, learned advocate so appointed, is absent.

¶15

In the circumstances, the application is being decided after going through the same and after hearing the learned APP.

1/3

BA-180.13

The applicant is an accused in R.C.C. No. 1695 of 2010, pending before the J.M.F.C. Thane. He is in custody since 27^th October, 2010. Though the trial is progressing, only five witnesses have been examined so far.

¶20

From the copies of the notes of evidence annexed to the application, it appears that the witnesses, who have been examined so far, have stated that the amounts in question were handed over by them to co-accused, who is applicant’s wife. It appears that there were interactions between the witnesses and the said co-accused; and that the applicant himself was not dealing with the witnesses, who have been examined so far. It appears that a lessor role, than that attributed to the said coaccused was played by the applicant.

¶21

Even otherwise, considering that the applicant is in custody for a period of more than two years and six months, and that the trial is nowhere nearing its end, it would be proper to release the applicant on bail.

2/3

BA-180.13

The application is allowed.

¶26

The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum

¶27

of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

¶28

The learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the trial expeditiously and endeavour to complete it within a period of one year from today.

¶29

A copy of this order be forwarded to the applicant in prison.

¶30

The prison authorities shall acknowledge the receipt of the order and confirm the fact of the same having been delivered to the applicant.

¶31

The application is disposed of.

¶32

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶33

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶34

md.saleem

¶35

3/3

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Jaysukhlal Doshi 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

Mahesh Dagdu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balraj J. Khathuria and Others Vs Garib Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Balraj J. Khathuria and Others Vs Garib Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Kalpana Dattatraya Bhosale Vs Nagabai Shambhu Dudhale and Anr.

Lakkadsing Sheetalsing Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Chandrasen Rane Vs Sidhrath N. Shah ( H.U.F.) and Ors.