Dismissed

Uttam Sadashiv Karale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Oct 2014BA/1252/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a bail application for an accused facing theft and kidnapping charges, finding no changed circumstances despite co-accused bail and acquittal in a different matter, while remanding the matter for reports on prior bail orders.

What the court decided

AI extract

Uttam Sadashiv Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

DeshmaneDeshmane

901.BA.1252-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1252 OF 2014

¶6

Uttam Sadashiv Karale ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶7

Ms. Anjali Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. Shilpa Gajare - Dhumal, APP, for the State. Mr. G.R. Madage, Head Constable, Karjat police station present.

¶8

CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 10^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant in this repeated bail application. Earlier bail application of the present applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 27.3.2014. That time the case of the present applicant was discussed in detail.

¶12

The offences alleged against the applicant are punishable under Sections 379 and 328 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

¶13

Code. Today there are no changed circumstances except

1 / 4

Deshmane

901.BA.1252-14.doc

apparently grant of bail to the main co-accused whose name was already mentioned in the First Information Report lodged by the complainant woman. The said co-accused is by name Jitu Sawant, resident of Mahad.

¶19

During the arguments, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that though the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected as there were three other criminal cases pending, recently he has been granted bail in two matters and in one matter he has been acquitted. After going through the order of bail granted in C.R. No.49 of 2012 registered with Karjat Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC against the present applicant, it is found out that the said order was passed on 17.12.2013. In the said order while granting bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for the present applicant by the Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag, directions were given to the applicant to attend Karjat police station on every Sunday between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00

¶20

noon until further orders. It is a factual position that when this bail order was passed on 17.12.2013, the present applicant was already in custody in the present matter as he was arrested on or

2 / 4

Deshmane

901.BA.1252-14.doc

about 31.8.2013 and subsequently his bail application before this Court was rejected on 27.3.2014. But, the fact still remains that he was in custody in the present matter and apparently this factual position was not brought to the notice of the Sessions Court otherwise directions for attendance to the police station could not have been passed by the Sessions Court.

¶26

In any event there is a need to call for the report from the concerned Sessions Court regarding grant of bail on 17.12.2013 in C.R. No.49 of 2012 registered with Karjat police station.

¶27

Moreover, as it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the main co-accused Jitu Sawant has been granted bail by the Sessions Court, RaigadAlibag, it is necessary to call the report regarding said bail order also. On asking by the Court, the learned Counsel for the applicant expressed her inability to give the bail application number though she placed reliance on grant of bail to the said Jitu Sawant for purpose of present bail application. In that event, the learned Prosecutor to get the relevant information from the concerned Court.

3 / 4

Deshmane

901.BA.1252-14.doc

In the considered opinion of this Court, there are no changed circumstances to reappraise the material as against the present applicant and to view the present application for bail differently. Criminal Bail Application is accordingly rejected.

¶33

Though the present bail application is rejected and disposed of, the matter shall be taken up before the Court on reopening after the Diwali Vacation in view of the aforesaid directions. Hence, the matter to be taken before this Court on 31st October, 2014. Registrar (Judicial-I) to get the report, as aforesaid, from the concerned Court on or before 31^st October, 2014.

¶34

4 / 4

Uttam Sadashiv Karale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Uttam Sadashiv Karale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ramniklal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwambhar U. Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashokkumar Amarnath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harshad Kanjibhai Maru Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harshad Kanjibhai Maru Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishnashu Jangbahadur Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra