Allowed

Sachin Chandrakant Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Mar 2018APPA/1201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal application to suspend sentence and release applicant on bail during pendency of appeal. Court noted conviction relied solely on unverified cellular tower location evidence obtained in violation of Section 65-B Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended and applicant released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with sureties in the same amount.

Sachin Chandrakant Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(904)APEALNo.12012017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1201 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.503 OF 2017

¶5

Sachin Chandrakant Shinde ... Applicant V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

¶10

DATED : 9^th MARCH 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/accused No.5 on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him.

¶13

2 The applicant/accused came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence of six months.

¶14

Gaikwad RD

¶15

(904)APEALNo.12012017

¶16

3 Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

4 The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant is convicted of the alleged offence only on the basis of evidence of location of the cellphone, but even the applicant is also residing near spot of the incident. The learned Advocate further argued that even evidence of P.W.No.15 Sachin Shinde, Nodal Officer, working with the cellular company is not useful because the data was not available in the main server when the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was issued.

¶18

5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application by contending that the applicant has chequered history and offence is held to be proved against him.

¶19

6 I have carefully considered the submissions so advanced.

¶20

7 The learned trial Court convicted the applicant/ accused on the basis of tower location of his cellphone by holding that the cellphone of the applicant/accused was certainly in the close vicinity of Saikrupa Society located in Sahkarnar Parvati,

¶21

2/3

¶22

Gaikwad RD

¶23

(904)APEALNo.12012017

¶24

Pune as seen from evidence of P.W..No.15 Sachin Shinde, Nodal Officer. Prima facie, it is seen that the incident took place at Lakaki Society, Sahkar Nagar and particularly in bungalow No.2. Moreover, evidence of the Nodal Officer shows that he had issued the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act without verifying the data available with the main server and as such, at the time of final hearing of the appeal the effect of this evidence will have to examined. Suffice to state that the applicant was also resident of Khandhve Nagar, Pune and the only evidence against him is that of tower location of his cellphone. He was on bail during pendency of the trial. Hence, the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) The application is allowed.

¶27

(ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant/accused is suspended and he directed to be released on bail on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of 15000/- and on furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶28

(iii) As a condition of this Order, the applicant should not indulge in commission of any offence in future and failure to abide by this condition will result in cancellation of liberty granted by this Court on an application moved by the Respondent/State.

¶29

(iv) Copy of the Order be sent to the concerned jail.

¶30

3/3

¶31

Gaikwad RD

Sachin Chandrakant Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Chandrakant Shinde 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

Chetan Vijay Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Babalya Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishor Asabe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangala Krushna Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salim Shaikh @ Dhila Ali Mohammed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Nandram Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra