Allowed

Tanvir Imtiyaz Shahaji v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2014APPA/830/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 389 CrPC to suspend the substantive sentence imposed on the applicant during the pendency of his criminal appeal. The court enlarged him on bail after finding he was already on bail during trial and had alleged evidence supporting his claim.

What did the court decide?

Suspended substantive sentence and enlarged applicant on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000 and sureties.

Tanvir Imtiyaz Shahaji Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

15.appa830.14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2014 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2014

¶6

Tanvir Imtiyaz Shahaji. ... Applicant. Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

... Respondent.

¶9

Mr. U.R. Agandsurve, advocate for Applicant.

¶10

Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : JULY 1, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers.

¶14

2 This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of substantive sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant herein has been convicted by Judgment and Order dated 6^th May, 2014 passed by the II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2011 for offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.

¶15

Talwalkar 1/4

¶16

2 15.appa830.14.sxw

¶17

1000/ I.d. to suffer further R.I. for six months. The applicant is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ I.d. to suffer further R.I. six months. The applicant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ I.d. to suffer further R.I. for six months. All substantive sentences to run concurrently.

¶18

3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and therefore, seeks extension of the same relief during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

4 Perused the notes of evidence. The prosecutrix was examined by the prosecution as P.W. 1. She has specifically stated before the Court that she got married with the present applicant in June 2012. She has specifically deposed before the Court that the applicant herein had not forcibly taken her to Vijapur. It is also admitted that the accused had not ravished her. There is no question of promise to marry the prosecutrix. Similarly, P.W. 2 who happens to be the father

Talwalkar

2/4

3 15.appa830.14.sxw

of the prosecutrix has also admitted before the Court that the mother of the applicant and mother of the prosecutrix were good friends. He has also admitted that his daughter has got married to the present applicant. The couple is blessed with a son. He has also admitted that he had not approved of his daughter getting married with the present applicant and therefore, he has a grudge against the accused. The very fact that the victim has turned hostile and has married the applicant, the applicant and the prosecutrix were living happily till he was taken into custody on 6/5/2014. In view of this, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.

¶24

5 Hence the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) The application is allowed. The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is hereby suspended and he be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ and one or two sureties in the like amount.

Talwalkar

3/4

4 15.appa830.14.sxw

(iii) The applicant shall report to the Court of Sessions, Solapur once in 6 months on the date specified by the Sessions Court at Solapur. Upon failure to report on two consecutive dates by the applicant, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶31

6 The Application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶32

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶33

Talwalkar

¶34

4/4

Tanvir Imtiyaz Shahaji v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvir Imtiyaz Shahaji 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

Dattatray Sakharam Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jayprakash Kamlakar Kotkar Vs Mrs. Anuradha Jayprakash Kotkar

Jayprakash Kamlakar Kotkar Vs Mrs. Anuradha Jayprakash Kotkar

Sanjay Vishwambar Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Lakshmi Yallappa Vaidu, through Kolhapuri Bandu Lakade Vs Shri. Yallappa Bau Vaidu

Shaikh Zakir S/O Shaikh Munaf Vs the State of Maharashtra