Allowed

Amol Gorakh Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Mar 2017APPA/288/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of an appeal. The accused, convicted of intending hurt under Section 332 IPC and sentenced to three years, was directed to be released on executing a PR bond and furnishing surety with weekly police appearances as a condition.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; accused released on PR bond of Rs. 15,000 and surety of like amount, with weekly police station attendance.

Amol Gorakh Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8-APPA-288-289-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.289 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.157 OF 2017

¶4

Amol Gorakh Gaikwad

¶5

)...Applicant

¶6

V/s. State Of Maharashtra )...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nitin Kamble, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms. V.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 2^nd MARCH, 2017.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

These are applications for suspension of sentence and

¶12

releasing the Applicant-Original Accused No.1 on bail during the pendency of the Appeal filed by him.

¶13

2 The Applicant-Accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC on proof of the case of the prosecution that he had intentionally caused hurt to informant/public servant who was discharging his duties as public

¶14

Shivgan 1/3

¶15

8-APPA-288-289-2017.doc

¶16

servant.

¶17

3 Heard both sides and perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction apart from deposition of witnesses.

¶18

4 Applicant/Accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 307, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC but on due trial, the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC is proved only against Applicant-Accused no.1 Amol Gaikwad. Accordingly, the learned trial Court sentenced him to suffer RI for three years apart from payment of fine and sentence in default.

¶19

5 Short sentence is imposed on the Applicant-Accused and the appeal filed by him is already admitted for final hearing. It will take its own time for disposal. Considering the offence proved against the Applicant-Accused and the short sentence imposed upon him, he can be granted liberty during the pendency of his appeal and, therefore, order:

¶20

(1) Applications are allowed.

¶21

(2) Substantive sentence of imprisonment

¶22

imposed on the Applicant-Accused is suspended

¶23

and he is directed to be released on bail on

¶24

Shivgan 2/3

¶25

8-APPA-288-289-2017.doc

¶26

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-

¶27

and on furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶28

(3) As condition of this order, the ApplicantAccused shall attend jurisdictional police station on every Sunday of a month in between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

¶29

(4) Applications accordingly stand disposed of.

¶30

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶31

Shivgan 3/3

Amol Gorakh Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Gorakh Gaikwad 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

Sadashiv Bira Barkade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilipkumar Totaram Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Shripati Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod @ Sai Damodar Ghogale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Hariba Sontakke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Savita Sunil Patil Vs Vivekanand Chandrashekhar Hiremath (Since Deceased) through His Legal Heirs Hema v. Hiremath and an