Allowed

Pintu Hridayram Nishad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jul 2019BA/516/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed in connection with charges under IPC Sections 307, 328, 381, 120-B, and 34 for attempted murder and administering stupefying substance. Applicant released on bond with strict conditions including monthly attendance and residence reporting.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail by furnishing Rs. 25,000 bond with one or two local solvent sureties in like amount, subject to stringent conditions including monthly police reporting.

Pintu Hridayram Nishad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

903-ba.516.2019.doc

1/5

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.516 OF 2019

¶6

Pintu Hridayram Nishad ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr.Aniket Vagal, for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms.Veera Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

¶9

PSI – Sunil Gomare, Juhu Police Station, Mumbai.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶11

DATE : 4^th JULY, 2019

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.26 of 2014 registered with the Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 328, 381, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

903-ba.516.2019.doc

¶16

2/5

¶17

Perused the papers. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 24^th January, 2014. The complainant – Himalaya Dasani has stated that he found his parents in an unconscious condition at the residence. He has alleged that their servant – Sanjaykumar Ramsevak Nishad@ Ramprasad @ Ramu had administered a stupefying substance to his parents, as a result of which, they became unconscious. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged as against Sanjaykumar. During the course of investigation, three other co-accused came to be arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in the said charge-sheet, the applicant was shown as absconding accused. Since the applicant was absconding, the trial against co-accused who were arrested commenced and after trial, three of the accused were acquitted and one accused - Sanjaykumar was convicted. The applicant was arrested on 22^nd February, 2018. As far as the applicant is concerned, no specific role has been assigned nor has he been named in the FIR. It appears from the memorandum statement of convicted accused - Sanjaykumar, that the applicant along with the other accused instigated Sanjaykumar to administer 'Lidocaine' powder to the old couple, where he was working and to rob the couple.

¶18

903-ba.516.2019.doc

¶19

3/5

¶20

Learned Counsel for the applicant has tendered an affidavit of

¶21

the applicant. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In the said an affidavit, the applicant has undertaken to attend the trial Court on every date and has also undertaken not to commit similar or any other offence.

¶22

Learned APP submitted that stringent conditions be imposed, considering the fact that the applicant is not a resident of Maharashtra, but, is a resident of Uttar Pradesh.

¶23

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the application is allowed and the applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties in the like

¶26

amount;

¶27

ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, on the first

¶28

903-ba.516.2019.doc

¶29

4/5

¶30

Saturday of every month, between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., till the conclusion of the trial;

¶31

iii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Court as well as to the concerned Police Station, in writing;

¶32

iv) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai and Thane City, without the permission of the trial Court;

¶33

v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence/contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶34

vi) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial and shall attend the trial Court on every date of hearing, unless exempted by the trial Court;

¶35

903-ba.516.2019.doc

¶36

5/5

¶37

vii) An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses (ii) to (vi), shall be filed by the Applicant, in the Registry of the trial Court, within two weeks of his release;

¶38

viii) If there are 2 consecutive defaults either in attending the Police Station or in appearing before the trial Court, or breach of any of the conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of Applicant's bail.

¶39

The Application is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

¶40

It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this application and the learned Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶41

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Pintu Hridayram Nishad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Hridayram Nishad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Sadik @ Sonu Mohd. Nasir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nisar Anwar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Riyaz Kayamali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganpatrai Shivram Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangesh Chotu Lodhi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh @ Ganya Manikrao Sadavarte Vs the State of Maharashtra