Disposed

Saymon Onyak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Sept 2017APPLN/119/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought modification of a bail order. The High Court modified conditions for the release on bail of foreign nationals accused of circulating fake currency, requiring a PR bond, cash surety, and strict reporting conditions, with a directive to surrender within two months if sureties were not found.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 23.3.2016 imposing conditions by modifying the terms of release on bail and allowing release on furnishing PR bond of Rs.1 lakh, cash surety of Rs.50,000 and other conditions within a

Saymon Onyak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

Nalawade A.S.

Appln-119-17-911

1 /3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2017

¶6

Saymon Onyak and ors.

¶7

..Applicants.

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Rajendra Bidkar for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav,APP. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 13^th September, 2017.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This is an application for modification of the order dated 23.3.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel in CR No.4/2016 registered with Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai.

¶15

By an order dated 23.3.2016, the applicants/accused are directed to be released on bail in the said crime for an offence punishable under Section-420, 489(c) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(c) and (d) of the Information Technology Act and the applicants have been directed to furnish PR and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties on certain conditions.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that though the order of release on bail has been passed by the Trial Court on 23.3.2016 as the applicants are unable to furnish sureties in the like amount, they are still languishing in jail. He therefore, prayed that said order be suitably modified.

¶17

Nalawade A.S. 2 /3

¶18

Appln-119-17-911

¶19

The learned APP submitted that if the applicants are released on bail without imposing stringent conditions there is every possibility that the applicants may abscond and will not be available for trial.

¶20

Perused the record. The record clearly indicates that the applicants are foreign nationals and have indulged into crime of circulating fake currency in India. However, as the trial Court has already passed an order releasing them on bail, I am inclined to modify the said order.

¶21

Hence,the following order.

¶22

a) The applicants be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and cash surety of Rs.50,000/- each for a period of two months from the date of their actual release from jail subject to following conditions.

¶23

b) Before they are released from Jail the applicants shall provide their prospective residential latest address to the Investigation agency. c) The applicants shall also filed an affidavit mentioning their prospective residential address and giving an undertaking to the effect that within a period of 60-days from the date of actual release they shall furnish one or two solvent local sureties to make up the bail amount.

¶24

d) The applicants to give further undertaking that they will attend each and every date of the trial, in the trial Court.

¶25

e) During the period on bail the applicants shall attend the

¶26

Nalawade A.S. 3 /3

¶27

Appln-119-17-911

¶28

concerned police station on every 1st and 3^rd Monday of the month between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and mark their presence thereto.

¶29

g) It is made clear that if the applicants failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions within a period of 60 days from their actual release from jail, no further extension will be granted and the applicants will have

¶30

to surrender to the Jail custody.

¶31

S.O. for 3-months for compliance.

Saymon Onyak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saymon Onyak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Janardhan Atakale Vs Ganesh Baliram Atkale and Ors.

Pradip Gulabrao Devtale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdeo Pandurang Jagtap Vs Sanjay Babanrao Kadu and Ors.

Vishal Surendran Nair and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parmeshwar Shivaji Narake Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaila Balasaheb Choure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.