Allowed

Vikrant @ Vicky Vijay Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jan 2017APPA/28/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding conviction under Section 326 IPC, the High Court of Bombay allowed a bail application for suspension of a short 3-year sentence due to no likelihood of immediate hearing.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; applicant directed to release on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- and furnishing surety in like amount.

Vikrant @ Vicky Vijay Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

905-APPA-28-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2017

¶5

VIKRANT @ VICKY VIJAY NIKAM )...APPELLANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.V.V.Purwant i/b. Ms.Vrunda Surve, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 10^th JANUARY 2017.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and for releasing the applicant / accused on bail during pendency of the appeal.

¶14

2 Heard both sides and perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The applicant / accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC as well as under Section 37(1) read with Section 35 of

¶15

avk 1/2

¶16

905-APPA-28-2017.doc

¶17

the Maharashtra Police Act. He is, however, convicted of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The learned counsel for the applicant / accused makes a statement that this sentence is already suspended by the trial court.

¶18

3 Considering the fact that short sentence is imposed upon the applicant / accused and that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard immediately in near future, as well as that the applicant / accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the application deserves to be allowed and therefore the order :

¶19

i) The application is allowed.

¶20

ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant / accused is suspended and he 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.

¶21

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶22

avk 2/2

Vikrant @ Vicky Vijay Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant @ Vicky Vijay Nikam 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

Ninoy Rambhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Doodhsakhar Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Santram Krushna Powar and Anr.

Rakhma Govind Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Raza Khan Vs Mansingh Mahavir Nayak and Anr.

Meena Prashant Tathe Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Omkar Raju Shinde and Ors. Vs Ambika Omkar Shinde and Anr.