Allowed

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2014APPA/681/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Application for bail pending appeal was filed by a person convicted under Section 304 Part 2 IPC. The High Court considered the submissions and the gravity of provocation, noting the huge pendency of appeals. It decided to grant bail with conditional terms.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail pending appeal with suspension of sentence, ensuring a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety, and compliance with conditions on evidence tampering, residence, and appearance.

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

appa.681.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINALAPPLICATION NO.681 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.357 OF 2014

¶5

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar ... Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Ritesh Ratnam i/b Ganesh Gole for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: JULY 17, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.

¶13

The application is moved for bail pending Appeal. The applicant is

¶14

held guilty by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik under section 304, Part 2 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d to suffer imprisonment for 1 year.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant/convict was on bail throughout the trial. The incident has taken place on the spur of a moment and the learned Judge has also mentioned that the incident has occurred due to grave and sudden provocation. The

¶16

1 / 2

¶17

appa.681.2014.doc

¶18

learned Counsel submitted that the applicant is willing to abide by all the conditions of this Court if he is granted bail.

¶19

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶20

Perused the relevant portion of the impugned judgment. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the huge pendency of appeals before this Court, this Appeal, being of the year 2014, may not be heard in near future, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the following terms:

¶21

i) The impugned sentence of the applicant is suspended pending appeal;

¶22

ii) The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount;

¶23

iii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and shall not indulge into any criminal activity while on bail;

¶24

iv) In the event the applicant changes his residence, he shall communicate the new address to the concerned police station;

¶25

v) The applicant shall make himself available at the time of hearing of the appeal.

¶26

The Criminal application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

2 / 2

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar 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

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Krishna Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Waman Bomble Vs Mahadu Rama Bomble and Ors.

Anand Umashankar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shardul Madhukar More Vs the State of Maharashtra