Allowed

Prakash Sitaram Andhere v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2019APPA/533/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 533/2019, the Bombay High Court allowed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. to suspend the substantive sentence of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed on the applicant following conviction under S.C./S.T. Act and IPC Sections 354 and 452, granting bail during appeal pendency.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence and enlargement of the applicant on bail requiring a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and one or more sureties in the like amount.

Prakash Sitaram Andhere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

903.appa533.19.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 533 OF 2019

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2019

¶6

Prakash Sitaram Andhare. ..Applicant.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Mr. V.V. Purwant, advocate for applicant.

¶11

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for State.

¶12

Mr. A.A. Tadvi, H.C., Ganeshpuri Police Station, Thane (Rural).

¶13

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 2, 2019.

¶15

P. C. :

¶16

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶17

APP for State.

¶18

2 This is an application under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 seeking suspension of substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 29/3/2019 passed by Ad-hoc Dist. Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 300 of 2014 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to

Talwalkar

903.appa533.19.doc

pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

¶23

3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and has not committed breach of any conditions imposed upon him. The fine amount is paid. The sentence imposed upon the applicant is a short terms sentence. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that despite the fact that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and the sentence imposed upon the applicant is 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application seeking suspension of substantive sentence and therefore, the applicant is in custody since 29^th March, 2019.

¶24

4 Be that as it may, upon perusing the facts of the case and upon going through the impugned Judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶25

5 Hence, following order is passed :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The application is allowed.

¶28

(ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 29/3/2019 passed by ad-hoc Dist. Judge-1 and

Talwalkar

903.appa533.19.doc

Additional Sessions Judge, Thane is hereby suspended. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall mark his presence before the Special Court once in 6 months on the date specified by the Sessions Court, Thane. On failure to attend any two consecutive dates, the Sessions Court, Thane shall report the same to the High Court and the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶34

6 The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

¶37

Talwalkar

Prakash Sitaram Andhere v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Sitaram Andhere v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shantidevi Raghuvir Singh Dhimar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sitaram Dina Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Trimbakrao Mandlik Vs Prakash Baliram Baisane and Anr.

Appaso @ Dilip Hanmant Barkade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinayak Tulshidas Karbotkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Dnynba Bansode Vs Dattatraya Shrimant Mali and Anr.