Allowed

Devram Baban Lohate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Apr 2016APPLN/2102/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for release on bail by an appellant already in custody. The High Court allowed the application, releasing the applicant on bail with sureties and a penalty deposit to offset a penalty he had incurred due to previous continuous absence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in R.T.C. No. 184/2008, on executing P.R. bond with two sureties in Rs. 15,000 each and depositing Rs. 2,000 as penalty.

Devram Baban Lohate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapln2102-2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2102 OF 2016
(Devram Baban Lohate Vs. The State of Maharashtra)

¶5

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. M.B. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State

¶6

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 13/04/2016

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

1.Issue notice to the respondent/State. Learned

¶9

A.P.P.waivesserviceofnoticeforthe

¶10

respondent/State.

¶11

2.Heard both sides.

¶12

3.Due to the absence of the present applicant and
rest of the other accused, the case could not proceed.
In the circumstances, the case was kept on dormant file
by the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
Ultimately, in standing warrant, the present applicant
was arrested and brought before the Court on 21st March,
2016. For the above reasons, the application filed by

¶13

the present applicant was dismissed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akole. Hence, the

¶14

criapln2102-2016

¶15

¶16

present application.

¶17

4.Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for the

¶18

applicant, submitted that in fact, as the applicant was
bedridden, he could not attend the court.

¶19

5.Learned A.P.P. opposed the application. He

¶20

submitted that due to the continuous absence of the
applicant and other accused, ultimately, the case was
kept on dormant file and in the circumstances, the
standing warrant was issued against the applicant.

¶21

6.Upon hearing both sides, since the present
applicant is now behind the bars since 21st March, 2016,
no further purpose would be achieved by keeping him
behind the bars. However, as he remained continuously
absent, certain penalty is required to be imposed on

¶22

him. Hence, the following order:

¶23

7.The application is hereby allowed. The

¶24

applicant be released in R.T.C. No. 184/2008, pending on

¶25

the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Akole, on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.
30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) and also upon

¶26

3 criapln2102-2016

¶27

furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
(rupees fifteen thousand) each and upon his depositing
an amount of Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand) towards
penalty in the trial court, to be forfeited to the
Government.

¶28

8.The present application is accordingly allowed
and disposed of.

¶29

9.Hamdast is granted at the request of learned

¶30

counsel for the applicant.

¶31

[M.T. JOSHI]

¶32

 JUDGE

¶33

npj/criapln2102-2016

Devram Baban Lohate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devram Baban Lohate 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

Sunil Sitaram Dond Vs Ajay Dinkar More

Suraj S/O. Deelip Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashwini W/O Bhavesh Parlikar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gajanan S/O. Balbhim Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O. Maruti Chavan Vs Gajanan S/O. Balbhim Chavan and Anr.

Rajiv S/O. Bhanudas Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra