Allowed

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2017APPR/304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application seeking suspension of sentence execution pending disposal of a criminal revision. The court granted bail with one surety for Rs.10,000 due to delay risks in the revision.

What did the court decide?

Execution of the substantive sentence suspended pending disposal of the revision; Applicant released on bail of Rs.10,000 with one surety.

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Megha 901_revn_331_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2017

¶4

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶6

CORAM :SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶7

DATED: 11^th AUGUST, 2017.

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

This is an application for bail filed by the aforesaid Applicant, who has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 A and 337 of the IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶10

By the judgment and order dated 6^th August, 2012 in S.T.C. No.2463 of 2011 the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur, has held the aforesaid Applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo maximum imprisonment for a period of one year in addition to payment of total fine of Rs.4,000/-. The appeal

¶11

Megha

¶12

1/3

¶13

Megha 901_revn_331_2017.doc

¶14

being 75 of 2012 filed by the Applicant has been dismissed by judgment dated 2^nd May, 2017. The Applicant has been taken into custody and he is in jail since 2^nd May, 2017.

¶15

Mr. Tushar Khairnar, the learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has already deposited the fine amount. It is also to be noted that the Applicant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a maximum period of one year. The revision is of the year 2017. Considering the large pendency of the cases, the revision is not likely to come up for final hearing in the next couple of years. Hence, rejection of prayer to suspend the execution of substantive sentence will result the Applicant undergoing the imprisonment even before his revision is decided on merits. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the application is allowed on following terms:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(i) The Application is allowed;

¶18

(ii) The execution of substantive sentence in S.T.C. No.2463 of 2011 is suspended till the disposal of the revision on merits;

¶19

(iii) The Applicant is ordered to be released on furnishing

¶20

bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

¶21

Megha

¶22

2/3

¶23

Megha 901_revn_331_2017.doc

¶24

only) with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Solapur;

¶25

(iv) The Applicant shall furnish his permanent as well as local address, if any, and shall intimate change of address, if any, to the Investigating Officer, as well as to the concerned Court.

¶26

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶27

Megha

¶28

3/3

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatray Tukaram Jagdale 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

Prasad Balasaheb Sakore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Bhagwan Padwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imtiyaz Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Vilas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Harji Malkari Vs the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Kantaben Ramji Kharvi Vs the State of Maharashtra