Allowed application for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Held that conviction under Section 201 IPC required recording finding on substantive sentence. Directed release on bail with bond.
Substantive sentence suspended; Applicants released on bail with PR bond of Rs.15,000/- and surety of like amount.
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.
7-APPA-285-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.285 OF 2017 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF 2017
Maruti H. Sontakke and Ors. )...Applicants
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. )...Respondents
Mr. G.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2017.
P.C. :
This is an application for suspension of sentence and
releasing the Applicants-Accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal filed by them. The Applicants-Accused are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and they are sentenced to suffer RI for a period of five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-
2 Heard learned Advocate appearing for the ApplicantsAccused. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hanuman
Shivgan 1/3
7-APPA-285-2017.doc
and Others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 Supplementary (2) SCC 39, the learned Advocate argued that for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, it is necessary to record finding regarding imposition of substantive sentence. This requirement in his submission is missing from the evidence of the prosecution as accepted by the learned trial Court.
3 The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the Applicants are rightly convicted.
4 Perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is held as not proved from evidence of the prosecution by the learned trial Court. However, the Applicants-Accused are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for which short sentence is imposed on them. In the wake of this fact situation, the following order:
(2) Substantive sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the Applicants-Accused is suspended and they are directed to be released on bail
Shivgan 2/3
7-APPA-285-2017.doc
during the pendency of the appeal by executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount by each of them.
(3) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
Shivgan 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant suspension of substantive sentence and release on bail during pendency of appeal.
Whether the conviction for Section 201 IPC requires a finding on substantive sentence under Hanuman Shivgan case principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hanuman Shivgan 1 and Others v. State of RajasthanRelied on¶14
1994 Supplementary (2) SCC 39 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Maruti H. Sontakke and Ors.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
A. M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
