Allowed

Narendra Sakharam Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Apr 2019APPA/363/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under section 389 CrPC to suspend the substantive sentence imposed on applicants convicted under sections 498A, 34 IPC and section 306 IPC. The court enlarged them on bail subject to reporting appearances every six months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicants enlarged on bail by furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties; reporting to Sessions Court every six months.

Narendra Sakharam Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

903.appa363.19.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 363 OF 2019

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 396 of 2019

¶6

1 Narendra Sakharam Jadhav.

¶7

2 Sakharam Mahadu Jadhav.

¶8

3 Godabai @ Yashoda Sakharam Jadhav.

¶9

4 Manjula Hari Gaikwad.

¶10

..Applicants.

¶11

V/s.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra.

¶13

..Respondent.

¶14

Mr. Abhishek Avachat a/w. Mr. Aniket Velsarkar a/w. Mr. D.D. Deshmukh for applicants.

¶15

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for State.

¶16

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.

¶17

DATE : APRIL 25, 2019.

¶18

P. C. :

¶19

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned

¶20

APP for State.

¶21

2 This is an application under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicants. The applicants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶22

Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- I.d. to suffer further R.I. for one month. The applicant No. 1 is

Talwalkar

903.appa363.19.doc

also convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 22/2/2019 in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2018.

¶27

3 Perused the record and proceedings. It appears from the record that Hemlata had immolated herself while she was residing with her parents. On 18/6/2017 the applicants herein had been to the house of P.W. 1 who happens to be the father of Hemlata. They had halted there for a day. On the next day, the applicants and his 2 children aged about 14 years and 12 years had left the house of P.W. 1. There was quarrel between the couple. The record would indicate that the applicant No. 1 was having illicit relation with another woman and he had told her that he does not need her any more. The record would also indicate that in the year 2015, Hemlata was suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia and was under the treatment of Dr. Dhake as well as Dr. Sule who happened to be psychiatrist. It prima facie appears that Hemlata receded in the depression and therefore, she has committed suicide.

¶28

4 It is in these circumstances that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant deserves to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Moreover, the applicant was on bail during the

Talwalkar

903.appa363.19.doc

pendency of the trial and has not committed breach of any condition imposed upon him. Hence, following order is passed :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The application is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicants is hereby suspended. The applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-each and one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶36

(iii) Upon being enlarged on bail, the applicants shall report to the Court of Sessions, Nashik once in six months on the date assigned by the Court of Sessions, Nashik. Upon failure to attend any two consecutive dates, the Sessions Court, Nashik shall make report to the High Court and the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶37

(iv) It is made clear that suspension of substantive sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction.

¶38

5 The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

¶40

Talwalkar

Narendra Sakharam Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Sakharam Jadhav and Ors. 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

Union of India Vs Abdul Rahim Shaikh and Ors.

Manisha Sashikant Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujoy Ramesh Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanmant Yashwant Kasbe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs K.S. Nair and Anr.

Nitin Namdev Ambavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.