In this criminal application for bail, the bench rejected the applicant's plea in a kidnapping case under IPC Sections 364(A) and 386, citing the gravity of the offence, corroborative evidence against him, and his history of committing crimes after bail in other cases.
Application for bail rejected; hearing of the appeal expedited.
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.
14. cri appa 499-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 499 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2017
Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari
.. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Mr. B.A. Lawate Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 2, 2017.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
364(A) and 386 of IPC. For the offence under Section 364(A)
of IPC, he is sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant is
now seeking bail.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
14. cri appa 499-17.doc
PW 4 Vikaskumar and one another person and demanded ransom of Rs. 20,000/-. PW 4 Vikaskumar has been examined. He has stated that the applicant kidnapped them. The applicant and other accused took him near a tree. The accused persons were armed with country made revolver and knife. They demanded Rs. 20,000/- and gave threats of killing them if the amount is not paid to them. The accused made call to Uday (PW 1) by taking the mobile of Ramesh (PW 6). Ramesh talked with Uday and he informed Uday about kidnapping. Ramesh told him to bring Rs. 15,000/near Sagar Plaza Hotel in a galli. Uday came to the spot within two hours. Police were with him. The police had arranged a trap and the applicant was arrested at the spot. Thus, the applicant was caught red handed on the spot by the police. The evidence of PW 1 Uday and PW 6 Ramesh also corroborates the evidence of PW 4 Vikaskumar.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
14. cri appa 499-17.doc
case to grant bail. In addition, learned APP pointed out that the applicant is involved in five other cases. Three of the cases are under the Arms Act and two of the cases are of robbery. The cases relating to robbery are C.R. No. 201/2012 of Nizampura Police Station, Bhiwandi and C.R. No. 308 of 2010 of Shanti Nagar Police Station, Thane. The other
cases are of Bhiwandi City Police Station and Shanti Nagar Police Station. Learned APP submitted that after the applicant was granted bail in above five cases, he has committed the present offence. Looking to these facts, we are not inclined to grant bail. Hence, the application for bail
is rejected. However, hearing of the appeal is expedited.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who has been convicted under Section 364(A) and 386 of IPC pending appeal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. TAHILRAMANI
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
