Allowed

Sahebrao Biru Mogare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2017APPA/21/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for suspension of sentence and bail during appeal allowed. Court suspended substantive sentences and granted bail with conditions restricting contact with prosecution witnesses and prohibiting future offenses.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences suspended; applicant released on bail via P.R. Bond and surety of Rs.15,000/- each, with conditions against contacting prosecution witnesses and committing further offenses.

Sahebrao Biru Mogare and Anr. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

15-APPA-21-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2017

¶5

SAHEBRAO BIRU MOGARE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.A.B.Tajane, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 3^rd FEBRUARY 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

releasing the applicant / accused on bail during pendency of his appeal.

¶14

2 Heard both sides and perused the impugned judgment

¶15

and order of conviction apart from deposition of witnesses.

¶16

avk 1/4

¶17

15-APPA-21-2017.doc

¶18

3 The applicant / accused has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 307, 447, 504 and 506 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Lesser sentences are imposed for other offences and as substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently, it is not necessary to mention all those sentences.

¶19

4 Shivaji Palse and his brother Dada Palse are alleged victims of this incident. The applicant / accused is brother of deceased wife of Shivaji Palse. Pratibha is daughter of deceased's sister of the applicant / accused. On 14^th March 2004, Pratibha was given in marriage, but according to the prosecution case, in the marriage ceremony of Pratibha precedence was not given to the applicant / accused Sahebrao Mogare, though he is real maternal uncle of Pratibha. Rather, brother of second wife of Shivaji Palse participated in marriage ceremony of Pratibha. This is stated to be the cause in the incident in question.

¶20

avk 2/4

¶21

15-APPA-21-2017.doc

¶22

5 According to the prosecution case, on 18^th March

¶23

2004, for the reason that applicant / accused Sahebrao was not permitted to participate in rituals of marriage of his niece Pratibha, accused persons including applicant / accused Sahebrao formed an unlawful assembly and attempted to kill members of prosecuting party.

¶24

6 Perusal of evidence of injured Shivaji as well as injured Dada goes to show that accused persons assaulted Shivaji but when PW6 Dada intervened, they pelted stone at him.

¶25

PW6 Dada has suffered head injury in the incident as seen from evidence of PW7 Dr. Shekhar.

¶26

7 Evidence of PW6 Dada itself shows that he was

¶27

assaulted as he tried to intervene in the quarrel between the applicant / accused and brother-in-law of the applicant / accused namely Shivaji. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant / accused had intended to commit murder either of Shivaji or Dada.

¶28

avk 3/4

¶29

15-APPA-21-2017.doc

¶30

8 In this view of the matter and as the appeal will take its own time for final hearing, the following order :

¶31

i) The application is allowed.

¶32

ii) Substantive sentences imposed upon the applicant /

¶33

accused is suspended and the applicant / accused is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in like amount.

¶34

iii) As a condition of this order, the applicant / accused

¶35

should not contact members of the prosecuting party in any manner and should not indulge in commission

¶36

of any offence in future.

¶37

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶38

avk 4/4

Sahebrao Biru Mogare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahebrao Biru Mogare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rubina Motiyar Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Dattaram Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mubarak Abdul Rehman Shabir @ Shabir Vs Union of India and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tanaji Shivaji Karade and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gangaram Vittal Pokharkar

Mangesh Gulabrao Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra