Shantiprasad Veniprasad Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

1 of 3 8.IA.1.2019 in Appeal.1052.2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2019

¶4

Shantiprasad Veniprasad YadavApplicant
versus

¶5

The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶6

Mr.Prashant Gurav for applicant.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP, for State.

¶7

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATE : 25th September 2020
(LD/VC)

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.This is an application for suspension of sentence during
pendency of Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2019 preferred by applicant
challenging judgment and order dated 21st June 2019 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case
No.757 of 2013 along with Sessions Case No.71 of 2014. The
applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 451 and
357 read with Section 34 and Section 395 r/w Section 397 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 37(1)(a) r/w Section 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act. For the offence u/s 451 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the
applicant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years. For
the offence u/s 347 r/w Section 34 of IPC, he was sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. For the offence u/s
395 r/w Section 397 of IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years. For the offence u/s 37(1)(a) r/w
Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, he has been sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶11

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2020.09.2811:18:10 +0530

¶12

2 of 3 8.IA.1.2019 in Appeal.1052.2019.doc

¶13

2.The applicant had preferred application for suspension of
sentence viz Criminal Application No.1044 of 2019. The said
application was withdrawn. The tenor of the order indicate that the
application was not adjudicated on merits. Subsequently accused
no.5 Narayan Mangal Karan @ Nepali was granted bail by
suspending the sentence of imprisonment vide order dated 11th
October 2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1370 of
2019.

¶14

3.During pendency of the trial the applicant was granted bail by
the Sessions Court. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the
applicant is in custody for a period of about three years. There are
no criminal antecedents against applicant. The co-accused who was
attributed serious role than the applicant has been granted bail by
suspending sentence by this Court. The only material against the
applicant is recovery of mobile hand set. There is serious
discrepancy with regard to the identity of hand set. The applicant
was not identified in the test identification parade.

¶15

4.Learned APP submitted that the applicant had acted in
connivance with the co-accused. He acted in furtherance of the
common intention and thereby convicted for the offences as stated
above.

¶16

5.Apparently the evidence against applicant is recovery of hand
set. The applicant has doubted the identity of recovered article.
Undisputedly the applicant was not identified. The co-accused
Narayan Mangal Karan @ Nepali was directed to be released on bail
by suspending sentence by order dated 11th October 2019.

¶17

3 of 3 8.IA.1.2019 in Appeal.1052.2019.doc

¶18

Apparently the Court has also taken into consideration the fact that
he was in custody for a period of about six and half year. It is
pertinent to note that the applicant is in custody for a period of three
years. He was on bail during trial. Considering the nature of
evidence against applicant, the case for suspending the sentence and
grant of bail is made out.

¶19

6. Hence, I pass following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i)Interim Application No.1 of 2019 is allowed and disposed of;
(ii)The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant
Shantiprasad Veniprasad Yadav is suspended during pendency of
Criminal Appeal No.1052 of 2019 and he is directed to be released
on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount;

¶22

(iii)The applicant shall report Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai on
every first day of each month between 10 am and 1 pm initially for a
period of six months and thereafter quarterly on the first day of each
such month;

¶23

(iv)The applicant shall pay amount of fine, if not paid already;
(v)Provisionally the applicant shall be released on cash bail of
Rs.25,000/- and he shall furnish surety within eight weeks from the
date of release.

¶24

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶25

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶26

MST

Shantiprasad Veniprasad Yadav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantiprasad Veniprasad Yadav and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajinkya Eknath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinkya Eknath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetlal Mahavir Dangi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Chandrakant Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratidnyan @ Gulya Jijing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratidnyan @ Gulya Jijing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra