In these appeals, the applicants sought reduction of surety amounts and extension of time to furnish bail. The court held that despite previous reduction of surety, failure to furnish bail justified dismissal.
Applications for reduction of surety and extension of time were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
38.APPP.1478.18 in ABA.721.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1478 OF 2018
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2016
Riddhima Vinit Grover ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1592 OF 2018 IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1172 OF 2018
| Amit Arvind Sand Versus |
... | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| The State of Maharashtra | ... | Respondent |
Mr. Santaram Tarde h/f Mr. Debajyoti Talukdar for the Applicant. Mr. M.G. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 22nd APRIL, 2019.
P.C. :
1 Heard learned Counsel for applicant/Intervener, original
applicant-accused and learned A.P.P.
2 These applications are taken out praying for reduction of surety amount. Learned Counsel submitted that surety amount of other
1/2
Waghmare
38.APPP.1478.18 in ABA.721.16.doc
co-accused is reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- by this Court by its order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Application No.1208 of 2018, however, since applicant could not furnish sureties even of the reduce amount within stipulated period, time was further extended till 10.04.2019 and on instructions, makes a statement that even within said extended time, no bail could be availed by furnishing surety without justifying any reasons.
3 In the present applications, similar prayer is made however, considering the fact that inspite of reduction of amount to furnish surety, in respect of one of the co-accused by order of this Court dated 15.03.2019, since no surety is admittedly furnished. No case is made out for reduction of surety amount as even otherwise order by which applicants are protected from their arrest is passed by this Court on 01.09.2016, and applicants have failed to furnish bail.
4 The application Nos.1478 of 2018 and 1592 of 2019 are, therefore, dismissed.
(P.N. DESHMUKH, J.)
2/2
Waghmare
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the surety amount ought to be reduced given that the applicants failed to furnish bail after time extension.
Riddhima Vinit Grover
Amit Arvind Sand
The State of Maharashtra
P.N. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
