Allowed

Shankar Vishnu Sarode v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017APPA/1517/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter, the High Court allowed the application of the convicted accused seeking relaxation of a bail condition. The court deleted the requirement to appear before an Anti Corruption Bureau inspector monthly, noting the appeal was admitted for hearing and available record showed no risk of absence.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.4 of the order dated 16th November 2009 directing monthly appearance before the Anti Corruption Bureau is deleted.

Shankar Vishnu Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

9-APPA-1517-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1517 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1025 OF 2009

¶5

SHANKAR VISHNU SARODE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Rajendra V. Patil i/b. Mr.Shivaji Kadam, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 18^th DECEMBER 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for relaxation of Condition No.4

¶13

of the order dated 16^th November 2009 passed in Criminal

¶14

Application No.1212 of 2009. By this condition, during pendency

¶15

of his appeal, the applicant/accused was directed to appear before

¶16

the “relevant A.C.B. Inspector” once on first Monday of every month.

¶17

avk 1/3

¶18

9-APPA-1517-2017.doc

¶19

2 Heard the learned advocate appearing for the

¶20

applicant/accused. He argued that the applicant/accused, upon his conviction by the trial court, has preferred an appeal before this court which is already admitted for final hearing, and therefore, there is absolutely no necessity now to appear before the concerned Police Officer on first Monday of every month. The learned advocate further argued that the applicant/accused is a resident of Sangli and he is unnecessarily required to attend the Anti Corruption Bureau Inspector in Mumbai.

¶21

3 The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the applicant/accused is involved in serious offences.

¶22

4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and order. The applicant/accused is convicted in Special Case No.64 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code apart from offences punishable under

¶23

avk 2/3

¶24

9-APPA-1517-2017.doc

¶25

Sections 13(1)(c)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His appeal is already admitted for final hearing before this court. This implies that the trial is over and there is nothing tangible on record to show that the applicant/accused will not be available when the appeal will be heard by this court.

¶26

5 In this view of the matter, there is no propriety to continue Condition no.4 imposed on the applicant/accused and therefore the order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) The application is allowed.

¶29

ii) Condition No.4 of the order dated 16^th November 2009 passed in Criminal Application No.1212 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1025 of 2009 stands deleted.

¶30

iii)The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

avk 3/3

Shankar Vishnu Sarode v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Vishnu Sarode 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

Popat Shivaji Hajare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Bramha Builder Vs Madhav Pandurang Mohite and Anr.

Moin Vajiruddin Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shripal Maruti Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shripal Maruti Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehboob Hasan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra