The High Court rejected an application seeking relaxation or modification of bail conditions. The applicant argued that existing restrictions on movement and police attendance were unduly burdensome for his work as a fruit vendor, but the court found no merit in the request.
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.
APPP 759-15.doc
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.759 OF 2015
(For Modification)
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2597 OF 2014
Gulam Mohamed Hajrat Shaikh.Applicant
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr.Nitin Sejpal, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.R.Ambekar, APP, for the Respondent – State
CORAM:REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE :21.10.2015
P.C.
.Heardlearnedcounselforthe
applicant.
2.By this application, the applicant
seeks relaxation/modification of the condition
imposed by this Court (CORAM : P.D.KODE, J.)
vide order dated 16.01.2015. The condition of
which relaxation/modification is sought reads
thus :-
1 of 3
APPP 759-15.doc
“(i) stay at his Bombay address
mentioned in the application and
shall not leave the area of
Bombay and Thane without prior
permission of the Trial Court;
(ii) attend the I.O. on every
Monday in between 4.00 p.m. to
5.00 p.m. for a period of two
months and thereafter on every
first Monday of the Month until
further order.”
3.Learned counsel for the applicant
states that the applicant is a fruit vendor and
is required to take permission from the trial
Court, every time, he is required to leave
Bombay/Thane for his work. He states that even
the condition which is imposed of attending the
police station on the 1st Monday of every month
may be relaxed/modified to once in three months.
4.Admittedly, the applicant is not
resident of Maharashtra but is a resident of
Jharkhand. The said conditions are imposed only
with the sole object of securing the applicant's
2 of 3
APPP 759-15.doc
presence during trial. Of late, it is seen, that
it is difficult to secure the presence of the
accused, if the accused is not a resident of
Maharashtra. Even otherwise, vide the said
condition, the applicant can travel out of
Mumbai/Thane but only after seeking permission.
Similarly, attendance granted is once a month.
Nogroundismadeoutfor
relaxation/modification of the conditions.
5.The Application is rejected and is
disposed of accordingly.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail conditions of stay within Bombay/Thane and mandatory police station attendance should be relaxed for a non-resident fruit vendor.
Gulam Mohamed Hajrat Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court