Allowed

Hargbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Nov 2018APPA/1670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Bombay High Court allowed a criminal application for suspension of sentence and bail. The court exercised its judicial discretion, relying on a Supreme Court order releasing a co-accused of similar role, to grant bail to the applicant despite his confessional statement during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence and release on bail by furnishing bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Hargbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9.APPA.1670.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1670 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.288 OF 2015

¶5

Hargbahaddur Lagbahadur Bhandari @ Raju … Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Mr.Nitin Sejpal a/w. Mrs.Pooja N. Sejpal, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

Mr. Tanaji Kolthe, PSI, Oshiwara Police Station.

¶12

CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.

¶13

DATED : 28^th NOVEMBER 2018.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶16

releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him. The applicant/accused no.5 is convicted of offences punishable under Section 387 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999, (MCOC

1/5

Aarti Palkar

9.APPA.1670.18.doc

Act) in MCOC Act Special Case No.12 of 2010 on 3^rd February 2015 by the learned Special Judge under the MCOC Act, Greater Mumbai. For the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 3(2) of the MCOC Act, the applicant/accused no.5 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5 lakh and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 years. For the offence punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, the applicant/accused no.5 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5 lakh and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 years.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused no.5 Hargbahaddur Lagbahadur Bhandari @ Raju. He drew my attention to the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.456 of 2017 on 7^th February 2017 and argued that co-accused

2/5

Aarti Palkar

9.APPA.1670.18.doc

viz. accused no.7 Ravi Punjabi having similar role is directed to be released on bail by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is further argued that relying on the very same order of the Honourable Supreme Court, this court vide order dated 12^th April 2017 was pleased to release accused Narendra Soni on bail. It is further argued that even accused No.3 Paresh Nepal having similar role is released on bail by this Court on 17^th September 2018. Therefore, the applicant/accused also deserves to be granted similar treatment.

¶26

The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the present applicant/accused had given confessional statement and therefore, his complicity in the crime in question is duly established after trial of the case, and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the material made available on record.

¶28

Undisputedly, accused no.7 Ravi Punjabi is released on bail vide order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 7^th February 2017 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.456 of 2017. The case

3/5

Aarti Palkar

9.APPA.1670.18.doc

of the present applicant/accused is also at par with the case against the said applicant/accused no.7 Ravi Punjabi. Hence, on the principle of parity, the applicant/accused also deserves to be released on bail. Therefore the order :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The application is allowed by suspending the substantive

¶35

sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant/accused.

¶36

ii) The applicant/accused is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court.

¶37

iii) The applicant/accused shall produce his latest and full residential address in the concerned Special court while obtaining bail and he shall not change his address without the prior permission of the court.

4/5

Aarti Palkar

9.APPA.1670.18.doc

iv) If the applicant/accused is holding a passport, he shall deposit the same in the concerned Special court and if not, he should produce affidavit in that regard.

¶42

v) The application is accordingly disposed off.

¶43

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶44

5/5

¶45

Aarti Palkar

Hargbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hargbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Swaroop Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakhma Govind Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakhma Govind Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Paresh Ramprasad Nepali @ Pd Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fatima Farid Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kasturi Sales through Prop. Muribai U. Ranka Since Deceased through L/Rs Jayanti U. Ranka and Anr. Vs Late Sunil Jagdishprasad Agarwal Since Deceased through His L/Rs. Archana Sunil Agarwal and Anr.