Allowed

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav v. Hiralal Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2019APPR/31/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, who was arrested for non-compliance of an earlier order. Bail was conditioned upon furnishing a bond and a partial deposit of the pending fine, with the withdrawal of bail if the balance was not paid by January 31, 2019.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on condition of furnishing a PR bond and depositing the remaining fine amount on or before 31st January, 2019.

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav Vs Hiralal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

905.APPR31_2019.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) No. 392 OF 2016

¶5

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav … Applicant vs. Hiralal Vishwanath Gupta & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. B.G. Tangsali, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. Govind Ghogare i/b. Mr. Sandip J. Ghogare, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶8

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 23^rd January, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Criminal Application is moved by the applicant/accused

¶12

for bail pending the Criminal Revision Application. The applicant/accused was convicted by order dated 15^th October, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court, Mazgaon, Sewree, Mumbai. The said order was challenged by way of Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2014, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai by order dated 25^th January, 2016.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submits the

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

905.APPR31_2019.doc

¶16

applicant/accused was taken in custody on 3^rd January, 2019 for non-compliance of the order passed by the Court. The learned counsel submitted that today he has brought Demand Draft of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Registrar, Appellate Side, Bombay High Court and the applicant undertakes to deposit remaining amount of Rs.70,995/- on or before 31^st January, 2019. Hence, the learned counsel prays that applicant/accused be granted bail.

¶17

Learned Prosecutor is present and opposed this Application.

¶18

As the applicant/accused is today depositing Rs.1,00,000/and undertakes to deposit remaining amount of Rs.70,995/- on or before 31^st January, 2019, the said statement is accepted. On this condition, bail is granted to the applicant/accused on the following terms:

¶19

i) The applicant/accused shall be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶20

ii) If the remaining amount of Rs.70,995/- is not deposited with the Registrar of this Court on or before 31^st January, 2019, this order of bail will be withdrawn forthwith and the applicant/accused is to be taken in custody.

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

905.APPR31_2019.doc

¶23

iii) The applicant/accused shall not jump the bail.

¶24

iv) The applicant/accused shall make himself available on all the Court dates.

¶25

v) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶26

Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

3 of 3

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav v. Hiralal Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav v. Hiralal Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.

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

Henry Samuel Jacob Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tanaji Raghunath Mate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra Vs Parmeshwar Bacchu Tiwari and Ors.

Manish Krishna Kalburgi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda Arjun Bhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra