The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an application seeking suspension of sentence and bail during appeal. The applicant, convicted of dacoity, argued insufficient evidence. The Court rejected bail citing eyewitness identification, recovery of SIM/phone, call records placing him at the scene, and lack of prior bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
appa 1154 of 2015.doc
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1154 OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28 OF 2014.
Abdul Rehan Abdul Ajim Shaikh … Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
Mr. Ganesh K. Gole, for the applicant in Application No.1154 of 2015. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING CJ & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
ORDER RESERVED ON: 17th DECEMBER, 2015.
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 18th DECEMBER, 2015.
P.C. : [Per : Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]
Shaikh, has preferred this Criminal Application seeking suspension of
his substantive sentence of imprisonment and for his enlargement on bail
pending the decision of his appeal.
1
appa 1154 of 2015.doc
No.1158 of 2014, came to be withdrawn by applicant with liberty to file fresh application, as per order dated 12.1.2015, passed by this Court.
2
appa 1154 of 2015.doc
and therefore, in the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence on record, applicant deserves to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal.
and the mobile phone of the applicant were seized. P.W.15 Nodal Officer of Airtel Company, Yogesh Rajapurkar has proved C.D.R. of said mobile phone and SIM card, which shows that the applicant was in the vicinity of place of offence on 11.3.2010 and 23.3.2010 i.e.on the date of offence. The C.D.R. further reveals that the applicant was in contact and in touch with the other co-accused and immediately after the incident, he and other co-accused went at Bhayandar which corroborates evidence of P.W.29 Chandrabahadur Budha, that the accused had distributed looted amount in his house at Bhayandar (E).
3
appa 1154 of 2015.doc
suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarge the applicant on bail. Additionally we find that the applicant was not on bail
during the trial. Hence application stands dismissed.
[ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.]
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
4
appa 1154 of 2015.doc
C E R T I F I C A T E
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of his appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Rehan Abdul Ajim Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
