Allowed

Umesh Vishwanath Hadikar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Feb 2020APPA/154/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for suspension of substantial sentence awarded under Sections 353 and 332 IPC was allowed. Court ordered execution of term suspended on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties to Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year in both offences, conditioned upon furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two solvent sureties to Additional Sessions

Umesh Vishwanath Hadikar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

154-19-APPA-19=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2019
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2019

¶6

Umesh Vishwanath Hadikar

¶7

.. Applicant

¶8

v/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

Ms. Shabnam Latiwala for the applicant
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for respondent State

¶12

CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
 DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2020

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1.Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, who prays for
suspension of the substantive sentence, pending the appeal wherein
the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months of the offence
punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also
been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 332 and
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of
Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two
months. She submitted that the applicant has deposited the fine
amount.

1 of 2

154-19-APPA-19=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

2. Looking to the short period of sentence awarded to the applicant, the execution of substantive sentence is suspended on the applicant furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai.

¶19

3. The applicant shall attend this Court as and when directed.

¶20

4. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

 (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

Umesh Vishwanath Hadikar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Vishwanath Hadikar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harivansh Lavtu Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abasaheb Shrimant Hundekari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abasaheb Shrimant Hundekari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Girajabai Laxman Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gujar Raosaheb Gajare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh @ Shubham Tukaram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.