In criminal applications seeking expedited hearing and bail during a pending appeal dating to 2009, the court expedited the hearing but denied bail due to overwhelming evidence against the applicant.
Expedited hearing of the pending appeal allowed; bail application dismissed.
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 167.15.sxw
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 167 OF 2015
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 699 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2009
Naruddin Murtuja Ali Shaikh.
... Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
... Respondent.
Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, Appointed Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.
CORAM : P.V. HARDAS &
Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
MARCH 17, 2015.
P.C. :-
The Applicant in both these Applications has prayed for similar relief that is of expediting of the Appeal which is of the year 2009 and also to release the Applicant on bail.
2
APPA 167.15.sxw
Applicant is already added to the final hearing board and is pending final hearing. Since the Appeal is of the year 2009 and we are already hearing Criminal Appeals of the year 2009 and though the Appeal is on the final hearing board, we expedite the hearing of the Appeal. In so far as the relief of bail which is prayed for by the Applicant, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in the light of the overwhelming evidence against the Applicant, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and release him on bail.
(DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)
Naruddin Murtuza Ali Shaikh
State of Maharashtra
P. V. Hardas
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
