Partly allowed

Vijay Satish Patil @ Namde Parsu Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jun 2014BA/262/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal bail application in a dacoity case but directed the trial court to expedite the trial to complete it within nine months. Liberty to apply for fresh bail was granted if the trial exceeds this period.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within nine months; liberty to apply for fresh bail if trial exceeds this period.

Vijay Satish Patil @ Namde Parsu Pawar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BA262.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2014

¶6

Vijay Satish Patil @ Namdeo Parsu Pawar

¶7

.. Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

Mr. H. E. Moman, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : -16/06/2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

¶15

learned APP for the State.

¶16

2 The applicant is one of the accused in MCOC Spl. Case No. 1/2013. Apart from the offences punishable under the MCOC Act, the applicant and the other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable u /s 452 of the IPC and 395 of the IPC.

1/4

BA262.14

3 The prosecution case is that four persons entered inside the house of Smt. Manisha Dalvi, the first informant, assaulted her, threatened her with a firearm, obtained keys of her cupboard by force and robbed golden ornaments cash totally worth about more than Rs.9 lacs. It appears that after the incident and when the offenders left the place, the first informant raised cries which were heard by the residents of the building and passersby. It appears that the offenders were chased and two of them could be apprehended. The applicant is alleged to be one of the said two persons, who were apprehended immediately after the incident by the members of public.

¶21

4 A number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that some of the co-accused in this case have been released on bail. He also submitted that the case could be of mistaken identity and that, no weapon or property was found with the applicant when he

2/4

BA262.14

was allegedly caught by the members of public. Undoubtedly there is some substance in these contentions but considering the nature of material, I hold that it is not possible

¶26

to conclude at this stage that in all probability the applicant was not one of the four persons who had committed the dacoity. It appears that the first informant was confronted with the identity of the applicant after he had been apprehended. The finer aspects of the matter cannot be gone into at this stage.

¶27

5 Undoubtedly the applicant does not seem to be having any past criminal record and it is also true that he is in custody for a period of about two years. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it appears proper to me, to direct the trial to be expeditiously heard.

¶28

6 The application is rejected.

¶29

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the

¶30

trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order.

3/4

BA262.14

7 Liberty to the applicant to apply afresh for bail,

¶35

should the trial be not over within the time stipulated.

¶36

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶37

md.saleem

¶38

4/4

Vijay Satish Patil @ Namde Parsu Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Satish Patil @ Namde Parsu Pawar 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

Sanket Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parag Ramdas Mayane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Mohammad Majjid Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hari Sakharam Lingnurkar (Kulkarni) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Shrimandhar Bhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Kripashankar Rajnarayan Mishra and Anr.