Allowed

Savita Karbhari Mankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Mar 2017APPA/316/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No.316 of 2017, a single judge of the Bombay High Court allowed an applicant convicted of two offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court noted the concurrent sentence was one year each and suspended, granting a fresh bail direction.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; substantive sentence suspended; applicant directed to release on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000 and furnishing one surety in like amount.

Savita Karbhari Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8-APPA-316-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.163 OF 2017

¶5

MISS SAVITA D/O.KARBHARI MANKAR )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.R.V.Haturkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 6^th MARCH 2017.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

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

¶14

appeal. The applicant / accused is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the

¶15

avk 1/3

¶16

8-APPA-316-2017.doc

¶17

applicant / accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. These sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶18

2 Heard both sides. The learned APP argued that there is evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the applicant / accused.

¶19

3 Short sentence is imposed on the applicant / accused for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hearing of the appeal will take its own time. Hence, considering the fact that short sentence is imposed on applicant / accused, which is also reported to be suspended by the learned trial court, the following order :

¶20

avk 2/3

¶21

8-APPA-316-2017.doc

¶22

i) The application is allowed.

¶23

ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant / accused is suspended and the applicant / accused is directed to be released on bail on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing one surety in like amount.

¶24

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶25

avk 3/3

Savita Karbhari Mankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Karbhari Mankar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs M/S. Archana Maternity Home and Ors.

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs M/S. Disha Sonography Center and Ors.

M/S. H. B. and Associates and Ors. Vs Sunil Babilal Sancheti and Anr.

Samundersing Mahipal Sing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod L. Upadhya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mallikarjun Annarao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra