Allowed

Jaibunisa Gulam Rasul Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Aug 2018APPR/338/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The applicant was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment suspended and released on furnishing a bond. The application sought suspension of sentence pending disposal of a revision application.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of one year was suspended; applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties.

Jaibunisa Gulam Rasul Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 of 3 26.APPR.338.2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2018 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2018

¶5

Jaibunisa Gulam Rasul Shaikh Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶6

Mr.A.N.Pathan for applicant. Mr.P.H.Gaikwad, APP, for State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATE : 6^th August 2018

¶9

PC :

¶10

This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The applicant is convicted for offence punishable u/s 3 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The applicant is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 4 of the said Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The applicant is, however, acquitted for the offence u/s 5 of the said Act. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 18^th May 2018. While dismissing the appeal, the applicant was taken in custody and since then she is undergoing the sentence.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is in custody for about three months. The sentence awarded by the Courts below is one year. It is submitted that there are several infirmities in the case of prosecution. The panchas were not

¶12

Manish Digitally signedby Manish SThatte S Thatte Date: 2018.08.0812:58:53 +0530

¶13

2 of 3 26.APPR.338.2018.doc

¶14

examined. The alleged bogus customer has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. No other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. The case is based on the evidence and police witness. It is further submitted that the applicant was on bail during the trial as well as during pendency of appeal and she has not misused the facility of bail.

¶15

Learned APP submitted that there is concurrent findings of two Courts. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused and therefore the Trial Court convicted the applicant for the offences u/ss.3 and 4 of the said Act. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the charge and there is concurrent findings of two Courts against the applicant.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by learned advocate for applicant with regards to the nature of evidence adduced against her and also taking into consideration the fact that sentence is of one year and the applicant is in custody since 18^th May 2018, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Courts below can be suspended.

¶17

Hence, I pass following order :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) Pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Revision Application No.346 of 2018, the sentence awarded by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for ITPA, 54^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in CC No.5400557/PW/2013 by judgment and order dated 6^th April 2016, which was confirmed by the Sessions

¶20

3 of 3 26.APPR.338.2018.doc

¶21

Court, Borivali, Division Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 18^th May 2018, is suspended and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶22

(ii) Criminal Application No.338 of 2018 is disposed off.

¶23

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶24

MST

Jaibunisa Gulam Rasul Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaibunisa Gulam Rasul Shaikh 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

Vaishali Prakash Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Rmaharashtra

Satpal Singh Bachan Singh Nagul and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaban Gulamali Thanawala Vs Behram Maneck Pardiwala and Ors.

Sanjivan Natha Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gangadhar Parate Vs Dhirajlal Ratanshi Shah and Anr.

Prem Singh Vs Dhirajlal Ratanshi Shah and Anr.