Allowed

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Aug 2018BA/1630/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the applicant, who had previously forfeited his bail bond for absconding. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including appearing before the investigating agency monthly and attending trial court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties, subject to monthly appearance at the EOW Unit and regular attendance at the tria

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rpa 1/4 930-ba-1630-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1630 OF 2018

¶4

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Yogesh T. Bamne, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Y.Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶7

DATED : AUGUST 24, 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an application for bail in Crime No.12 of 2018, investigated by Crime Branch, EOW, Unit – I, for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 260, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

¶10

2 The applicant was arrested in 2015, and, thereafter, he was granted bail by the trial Court. Apparently, the applicant had attended the trial Court and for the period of about five month, the applicant did not attend the Court. Proclamation has been issued in the year 2017. Bail bond was forfeited on 12^th July,

¶11

Digitally signed by Rajeshri Prakash Aher Date: 2018.08.29 16:54:58 +0530

¶12

Rajeshri Prakash Aher

¶13

rpa 2/4 930-ba-1630-18.doc

¶14

Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was attending his ailing mother, and, therefore, could not attend the trial Court. He had gone to his native place. It is stated that from 2015 to 2017 he had attended the trial Court proceedings. Similar proclamation was also issued against the co-accused who has been granted bail by the Sessions Cour vide order dated 8^th December, 2017. It is submitted that the applicant would regularly attend the trial Court proceedings and would furnish his permanent place of residence. He has filed the affidavit of the brother in which it is stated that the brother is residing in the premises on basis of leave and licence agreement. It is also stated that the applicant is residing with him since last two years and in future if there is any change in residential address, the same will be intimated to EOW Unit–I. The applicant has also annexed copy of the Leave and Licence agreement executed between the brother of the applicant and owner of the premises where the applicant would reside along with his brother and other family members. Affidavit tendered by the advocate for the applicant is taken on record. Learned APP submitted that for a period of about 5 months the applicant was not traceable. He was absconding after he was granted bail, he failed to attend the trial Court proceedings. He has not furnished the permanent place of

¶15

rpa 3/4 930-ba-1630-18.doc

¶16

residence and in the event he is granted bail, there is every likelihood that he will again abscond.

¶17

3 It is noted that the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court in the year 2015. Thereafter, he had attended the proceedings. For a period of about five months he did not appeared before the trial Court, which resulted in issuance of warrant followed by the forfeiture of bail bond and proclamation. The applicant is in custody since 19^th April, 2018. The co-accused who was also arrested on execution of proclamation has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant has furnished his place of residence as stated hereinabove.

¶18

4 In the facts of the above, bail can be granted to the applicant on certain terms and conditions.

¶19

:: O R D E R ::

¶20

(i) Bail application no.1630 of 2018, is allowed;

¶21

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.12 of 2008, which is subject matter of Sessions Case No.856 of 2016, on

¶22

rpa 4/4 930-ba-1630-18.doc

¶23

furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶24

(iii) The applicant to attend the EOW Unit – I, once in a month on the first Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till further orders;

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall also attend the trial Court proceedings on every date of hearing unless exempted by the trial Court;

¶26

(v) The applicant shall furnish the details of his address to the investigating officer;

¶27

(vi) Criminal Bail Application No.1630 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶28

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Mahadeo Bandekar 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

Nagnath Popat Markad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahulkumar Ashokkumar Parcha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Samrao Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ameer Gulab Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangesh Ramji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra