Partly allowed

Hanuman S/O Dattarao Karkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016APPLN/3152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court suspended imprisonment sentences for two female appellants during appeal pending, citing their non-participation in assault and prior bail. Application for other appellants dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment against applicant nos. 2 and 3 suspended on personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with solvent surety. Application withdrawn for others dismissed.

Hanuman S/O Dattarao Karkar and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

3152.16appln

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3152 OF 2016 IN APEAL/372/2016 WITH APEAL/372/2016

¶6

1. Hanuman S/o Dattarao Karkar Age : 34 years, Occ : Labour,

¶7

2. Meenabai W/o Hanuman Karkar Age : 28 years, Occ : Labour,

¶8

3. Sojarbai W/o Dattatrao Karkar Age : 59 years, Occ : Labour,

¶9

4. Dattarao S/o Tukaram Karkar Age : 69 years, Occ : Labour,

¶10

5. Digambar S/o Dattarao Karkar Age : 29 years, Occ : Labour,

¶11

All R/o Thadi Ukkadgaon,
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
VERSUS

¶12

..APPLICANTS

¶13

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Sonpeth,
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶14

..RESPONDENT

¶15

...

¶16

Mr. P.N. Kalam holding for Mr. P.N. Muley,
Advocate for the applicants.

¶17

Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent/State

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: October 25, 2016

3152.16appln

PER COURT :-

Theapplicantshavesought

¶24

suspension of sentence passed against them by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gangakhed in Sessions Case no.7 of 2012 vide
judgment and order dated 12th May, 2016,
convicting the applicants for the offences
punishable under sections 144, 148 and 302
read with section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code (In short, “the I.P.C.”).

¶25

2.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants, on instructions, seeks
permission to withdraw the application so far
as applicant nos. 1, 4 and 5 are concerned.

¶26

3.The application is dismissed as
withdrawn, so far as applicant nos. 1, 4 and
5 are concerned.

¶27

4.Heard the learned counsel for the
applicants. He submits that applicant nos. 2
and 3, who, admittedly, were on bail during
the trial, were not actually involved in the
incident in question. He invites our

¶28

3152.16appln

¶29

¶30

attention to the evidence of Ashabai (PW-4)
in support of his contentions. He submits
that considering the role attributed to
applicant nos. 2 and 3, they may be released
on bail.

¶31

5.As seen from the evidence of Ashabai
(PW-4), who is stated to be an eye witness,
applicant nos. 2 and 3 had caught hold of
this witness and had beaten her. Her evidence
does not show that they actually assaulted
the deceased person, who was the husband of
Ashabai(PW-4).Consideringthisrole
attributed to applicant nos. 2 and 3, the
fact that they are women and that they were
on bail during the trial, we think it fit to
suspend the sentence against applicant nos. 2
and 3 during pendency of the appeal. Hence
the following order:-

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i)The sentence of imprisonment passed
against applicant no. 2 – Meenabai W/o
Hanuman Karkar and applicant no.3- Sojarbai
W/o Dattarao Karkar is hereby suspended, on
their executing personal bond of Rs. 15,000/-
(Rs. Fifteen thousand) each with solvent
surety each in the like amount.

¶34

3152.16appln

¶35

¶36

(ii)The application so far as applicant
nos.1, 4 and 5 is concerned stands dismissed
as withdrawn.

¶37

(iii)The application stands disposed of
in the above terms.

¶38

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
…

¶39

SGA

Hanuman S/O Dattarao Karkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman S/O Dattarao Karkar and Others 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

Shrimant Baburao Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrimant Baburao Devkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Guru Mahaling Guru Channabrao Shivacharya Maharaj and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Alias Papya S/O Ganeshrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ankush Bhimrao Jagtap and Ors.

Firoj Akbar Shaikh and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra