Allowed

Sikandar S/O Nijam Pinjari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2019APPA/1764/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant, original accused no.3, applied for interim bail after suffering approximately 90% of his rigorous imprisonment sentence. High Court allowed interim bail pending hearing of appeal for enhancement, noting significant delay attributable to the court.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties, with conditions to report to Sessions Court.

Sikandar S/O Nijam Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 appa-1764.18.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1764 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2014

¶6

Sikandar s/o Nijam Pinjari … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sandeep S. Ladda for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Mahesh Vaswani I/b. Ms. Dhurini Nagda a/w Mr. Jagdish Shetty for the Appellant in Apeal/365/2014 and Apeal/383/2014. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 1^st JULY, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 This is second bail application moved by the applicant (original accused no.3). His first Criminal Bail Application No.634 of 2014 was rejected on 12^th September 2014. However, hearing of appeal was expedited.

¶12

2 By the impugned judgment, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable section 376(2)(c) read with section 109 and 114 of IPC. He has also been convicted under sections 307, 304 part(II) and 377 with punishments of

1 of 4

2 appa-1764.18.docx

lesser duration.

3 Co-accused with him have been punished under these sections as also under section 302 IPC with like imprisonment.

¶17

4 The learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that including period of remission earned by the applicant, he has, as of now completed about 9 years of imprisonment, since he is in jail from the date of his arrest i.e. 31^st May 2011.

¶18

5 He relies upon the judgment reported in the case of Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P .¹ and judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 22^nd March 2001 in the case of Smt. Akhtari BI v. State of M.P . in Appeal (Cri.) No.320 of 2001 to butress his submission that in such situation, when more than half of the sentence is already suffered and appeal has not been heard, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He points out that paper books in the matter are ready since last more than two years but the matter could not be heard for no fault on his part.

¶19

6 The learned APP is seeking time as special counsel appointed to assist the Court is not available. Request for adjournment is opposed by the applicant who points out that this is second or third occasion when on same ground adjournment is being sought. We find that request for adjournment has come almost at the end of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

(1978) 1 SCC 579

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

3 appa-1764.18.docx

¶23

7 Without prejudice to his request for adjournment and only with a view to assist the Court the learned APP states that appeal for enhancement has also been filed in the matter and is yet to be admitted for final hearing. He therefore states that 10 years of imprisonment supposed to be undergone by the applicant cannot be seen as a final and conclusive sentence.

¶24

8 We have perused the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned (supra). The appeal for enhancement is yet to be admitted. Because of other connected matters, though appeal of present applicant has been expedited, it has not been heard till date. He has practically suffered 90 % of the punishment.

¶25

9 In this situation, we are inclined to release him on interim bail subject to following terms and conditions :-

¶26

(i) He shall be released on bail after executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties in the like amount before the trial Court;

¶27

(ii) He shall on affidavit place the address at which he shall always be available during pendency of these proceedings along with his contact numbers;

¶28

(iii) Identical details in relation to his sureties shall also be furnished;

¶29

(iv) He shall report to the Registrar/ Superintendent of the

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

4 appa-1764.18.docx

¶32

Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai on first working Monday once in a period of two months during the pendency of these proceedings;

¶33

(v) Failure to so report shall automatically result in cancellation of his bail and the respondent – State shall be entitled to take him in custody;

¶34

(vi) An undertaking on above lines shall be filed in trial Court within two weeks after receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶35

(vii) Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶36

(SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶37

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶38

4 of 4

Sikandar S/O Nijam Pinjari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar S/O Nijam Pinjari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Dhondiram Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Peter Topannu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Noor Ahmed Mohammed Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Sudam Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Yadav Sankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunita Ganesh Patil @ Sunita Laxman Zavare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.