Allowed

Jagdish Pandurang Nikam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Mar 2017APPA/318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the application for suspension of sentence. The court directed the release of the applicants on bail with security conditions, noting that the substantive sentences were short and suspended by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences suspended; applicants released on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000 each with surety in like amount, conditional on not contacting or threatening the victim.

Jagdish Pandurang Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

17-APPA-318-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.169 OF 2017

¶5

JAGADISH PANDURANG NIKAM AND ORS. )...APPLICANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Ms.Priyanka Dave i/b. Mr.Rahul Kate, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 7^th MARCH 2017.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

release of applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 on bail

¶14

during pendency of the appeal filed by him. They are convicted of

¶15

offences punishable under Sections 143, 324 read with 149, 342

¶16

read with 149 and 365 read with 149 of the IPC. For the offence

¶17

punishable under Section 365 read with 149 of the IPC, applicants

¶18

/ original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 are sentenced to suffer

¶19

avk 1/3

¶20

17-APPA-318-2017.doc

¶21

rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- by each of them. Lesser sentence has been imposed on them for other offences and substantive sentences imposed against them are directed to run concurrently.

¶22

2 Heard the learned advocate appearing for applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7. She argued that there is no evidence connecting applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 to the crime in question and considering short sentence imposed on applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7, which is even suspended by the learned trial court, they deserve liberty during pendency of their appeal.

¶23

3 The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the crime in question is serious and applicants /original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 had abducted informant Hanumant. He was wrongfully confined secretly and was assaulted by them.

¶24

avk 2/3

¶25

17-APPA-318-2017.doc

¶26

4 I have considered the rival submissions and also

¶27

perused copies of deposition of witnesses examined by the prosecution. Short sentence has been imposed upon applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 by the learned trial court and it is also suspended by the learned trial court. Hearing of the appeal will take its own time and therefore the order :

¶28

i) The application is allowed.

¶29

ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed

¶30

upon applicants / original accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 is suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on their executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on furnishing surety in like amount, by each of them.

¶31

iii)As a condition of this order, applicants / original

¶32

accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 should not contact the alleged victim of the crime in any manner and they should not extend any threat to him, during pendency of the appeal.

¶33

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶34

avk 3/3

Jagdish Pandurang Nikam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Pandurang Nikam and Ors. 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

Savita Karbhari Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samundersing Mahipal Sing and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod L. Upadhya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Dhondiram Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrirang Vasudeo Sadhaye Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Dhondiram Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra