Allowed

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Aug 2017APPA/882/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench allowed bail for the applicant, a convicted accused seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal, granting release on the same terms as during trial with fresh bonds. Conditions included personal presence at hearings and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal with fresh bonds, personal presence at hearings, and no travel abroad without court permission.

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

k 1/3 2 cri appa 882.17 in apeal as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.882 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.429 OF 2016

¶4

Akhileshkumar Yadav … Applicant/Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel o/b Mr. Prem Keshwani and Mr. Abhishek Yende for the Applicant/Appellant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent/State.

¶6

Coram : A.A. Sayed & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.

¶7

Date : 23 August 2017

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 This is an Application by the Applicant/original Accused No.1 for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal.

¶10

The Applicant and other accused persons are convicted and sentenced by the Trail Court to life imprisonment for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. They are also convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 304B and 498A IPC.

¶11

The Applicant/original Accused No 2 is the father-in-law of the

¶12

deceased. The deceased died and unnatural death within one year of

¶13

1/3

¶14

k 2/3 2 cri appa 882.17 in apeal as.doc

¶15

marriage. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture and was murdered. The son of the Applicant who was the original Accused No.1 is in custody.

¶16

We have perused the evidence of the Doctor (PW21) who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. He has deposed that except ligature marking injury, no other injuries external or internal was noticed. He has stated that it is Atypical hanging. He has deposed that the ligature mark is incomplete i.e. from right mastoid upto left mastoid. There are no signs of struggle and there is a strong possibility that it could be a case of suicide and not of murder.

¶17

There is no specific role alleged against the Applicant except that on the date of the incident, he had made phone calls in the office of the deceased inquiring about her salary. The other allegations are general in nature in respect of demand of dowry and harassment and are made against all Accused including the Accused No.3 who is granted bail pending Appeal.

¶18

The Applicant is 72 years old. He was on bail during trial by virtue of the order passed by the Apex Court. He is in jail from 11 May 2016 after being convicted by the Trial Court. The co-accused ((i.e. Accused No.3) who is the wife of the Applicant has been granted bail

¶19

2/3

¶20

k 3/3 2 cri appa 882.17 in apeal as.doc

¶21

on 6 December 2016 by this Court. The Appeal is not likely to be heard any time soon.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the Application on the following terms and conditions:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

i) Pending hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, the Applicant be released on bail, on the same terms and conditions on which he was on bail during the trial to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, but he shall furnish fresh bonds in the same amount. The Applicant shall be at liberty to furnish sureties of different persons than those who had stood as sureties during trial.

¶25

ii) The Applicant shall remain personally present at the time of hearing of the Appeal.

¶26

iii) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

¶27

(Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)

¶28

katkam

¶29

3/3

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav 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

Ravi Narsappa Mehtre and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Suresh Bhingardive Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Tarasingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aquino Avith Martis Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar @ Manu Savji Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Anaji Mahadik @ Vinherkar Vs the State of Maharashtra