Dismissed

Deepak @ Anna Sitaram Kate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 May 2015APPA/465/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal Court considered an application by a murder convict seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. Finding eye-witness testimony sufficient and noting lack of trial bail, the court declined bail but ordered the appeal placed on the final hearing board effective 08.06.2015.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail dismissed; Appeal directed to final hearing board effective 08.06.2015.

Deepak @ Anna Sitaram Kate Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

APPA 465 OF 2015.doc

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.465 OF 2015 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.560 OF 2012

¶5

Deepak Kate … Applicant.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶8

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF 2013

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

…. Appellant.

¶11

-vsSitaram Kate and anr … Respondents.

¶12

Mr.Mohammed Umer Kazi, for the Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS &

¶14

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 5^th MAY, 2015.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

This application filed by the applicant /original accused No.1, seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending decision of the appeal.

¶18

The applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the applicant committed murder of the deceased Sachin on 4.9.2010 and also attempted to commit murder of P.W.1 Rukmini. The entire prosecution case against the applicant is based on the eye witness account of P.W.

¶19

Page No.1 of 2

¶20

APPA 465 OF 2015.doc

¶21

Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. The learned trial Judge has relied on the testimony of eye witnesses and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the investigation had already commenced and subsequent to commencement of the investigation, F.I.R. was lodged. The learned counsel for the applicant has also urged certain other submissions which pertain to reappreciation of the evidence which cannot be entertained at this stage. Suffice it to state that eye witness account implicate applicant in the assault on deceased Sachin and Rukmini. Additionally, we find that the applicant was not on bail during the trial.

¶23

In the light of facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and release the applicant on bail. However, since the applicant has undergone about five years imprisonment, we direct that this appeal alongwith companion Criminal Appeal No.640 of 2013 be added to the final hearing board at its appropriate place on the board from 08.06.2015.

¶24

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶25

[P.V.HARDAS, J.]

¶26

Page No.2 of 2

Deepak @ Anna Sitaram Kate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Anna Sitaram Kate 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sandeep Sambhaji Panwal and Anr.

Vishnu Barkya Tumbada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nivruti Rama Bhise and Anr. Vs Superitendent Yerawada Central Jail and Anr.

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Kashinath Khomane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pervinderjeet @ Gogi Dhanuva Vs the State of Maharashtra