The High Court granted the appellant-accused an extension of eight weeks to furnish sureties as a condition of bail, noting that cash security had already been posted.
Applicant granted eight weeks time to furnish sureties as directed by previous order.
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.
19-APPA-24-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1462 OF 2016 IN APPEAL NO.753 OF 2016
Sandesh Ramchandra Nage
)...Applicant
V/s.
State OF Maharashtra & Anr.
)...Respondents
Mr. M.S.Pabari, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar for CBI.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY 2017.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
the sentence by order dated 8.12.2016 with a direction to him to
furnish sureties within a period of four weeks from his release on
cash bail.
Shivgan
19-APPA-24-2017.doc
3 By this application, applicant-accused is seeking
extention of time by eight weeks to furnish sureties. Applicant has already furnished cash security. Hence, the order:
(1) Applicant-accused is granted eight weeks time to furnish sureties as directed by the order dated
8.12.2016.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
Shivgan 2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the time to furnish sureties should be extended given the applicant has already furnished cash security.
Whether the applicant is granted eight weeks additional time to comply with the bail condition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandesh Ramchandra Nage
State OF Maharashtra & Anr.
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
