Allowed

Parmanand Kumar Paul Kishor v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 May 2017BA/398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application regarding alleged offences of receiving stolen property involving 183 LED TVs, the court allowed the applicant's bail on furnishing a bond and sureties, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on bail on executing a PR Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Parmanand Kumar Paul Kishor Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ba.398.17.10.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2017

¶3

Parmanand Kumar Paul Kishor ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶4

Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for the Applicant

¶5

Ms. S. S. Kaushik, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

¶6

ASI Mr. S. D. Phangal from Taluka Police Station, Nashik (Rural), is present

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. FRIDAY, 5th MAY, 2017

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P

¶10

for the State.

¶11

By this application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail

¶12

in connection with C.R. No. I-211 2016 registered with the Taluka Police Station, Malegaon, Nashik, for the alleged offences punishable under

¶13

Sections 406, 408, 120(b), 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/4

SQ Pathan

ba.398.17.10.doc

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the only allegation qua the applicant is, that he is a receiver of stolen property. He submits that in the investigation, 183 LED TVs of LG make were recovered from him. He submits that the applicant had no knowledge that the said LED TVs were stolen property.

¶18

Learned A.P.P opposes the application. She does not dispute

¶19

the fact, that the applicant was not present at the spot. However, she states that the applicant had knowledge of the fact that the LED TVs were stolen property, as the same were sold at a much lower price than the MRP. She submits that the applicant's car was following the container which was carrying LED TVs, which shows his complicity.

¶20

Admittedly, the applicant was not present either in the car or in the container, which was ferrying those LED TVs. There is recovery of 183 LED TVs of LG make from the applicant's shop. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant has no antecedents.

2/4

SQ Pathan

ba.398.17.10.doc

Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the

¶25

applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the

¶28

sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶31

(iv) The applicant to cooperate with the conduct of the trial;

¶32

The application is accordingly disposed of.

3/4

SQ Pathan

ba.398.17.10.doc

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶37

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶39

4/4

¶40

SQ Pathan

Parmanand Kumar Paul Kishor v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand Kumar Paul Kishor 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

Nagesh Dattatraya Kamble Vs Ramling Ambrushi Kilche and Anr.

Satywan Krushnaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satywan Krushnaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anwar Ahmed Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh and Anr. Vs Sufiya Khatoon Ashpak Ahmed Shaikh and Anr.

Avinash Dattu Kumbhar Vs Kiran Mangal Thale and Ors.

Bhagwat Mahadeo Bagal Vs the State of Maharashtra