Allowed

Shabahat Liyakhat Ali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Jul 2021IA/1818/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Crim. AJ allowed a criminal interim application by a convicted applicant, who was already on bail during trial, seeking suspension of sentence and bail while awaiting the final disposal of his criminal revision application. The High Court granted bail pending the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; enlarged on bail pending disposal of revision on terms including cash bond, furnishing of PR bond with sureties, and reporting to Sessions Court.

Shabahat Liyakhat Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

24-ia.1818.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1818 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 142 OF 2021

¶4

Shabahat Liyakhat Ali Khan ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Ms. Ishrat Khan i/b I. A. Khan & Associates, for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.P.P for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶8

DATE : 22^nd JULY, 2021

¶9

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to amend the application. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Revision Application.

¶14

1/4

¶15

24-ia.1818.2021.doc

¶16

The applicant has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 31^st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, in C.C. No.909/PW/2012, vide Judgment and Order dated 23^rd January 2017, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days and for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising Court and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 07 days. The applicant was however acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Judgment and Order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under MCOC Act, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2017, vide Judgment and Order dated 6^th July, 2021.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was on bail pending trial as well as during the pendency of his Revision Application and that he has not misused or abused the conditions of bail. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court acquitted

¶18

2/4

¶19

24-ia.1818.2021.doc

¶20

some of the accused and the Sessions Court acquitted the other accused, except the applicant No.1 She submits that the even the case of the accused was more or less identical. She further submits that the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the allegations of demand of Rs.5 lakhs by the accused. She submits that the applicant has a good case on merits.

¶21

Perused the papers. The applicant has made out a an arguable case, pursuant to which the Revision Application has been admitted by a separate order passed today. It is not in dispute that the applicant was on bail pending trial as well as during the pendency of his Revision Application in the Sessions Court and that he has not misused or abused the conditions of bail.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid, the applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his Revision, on the following terms and conditions :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) The Applicant be released on cash bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for a period of eight weeks;

¶25

3/4

¶26

24-ia.1818.2021.doc

¶27

ii) The Applicant shall within the said period of eight weeks, furnish P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶28

iii) The Applicant shall report to the Sessions Court, once in six months on the day/date specified by the Sessions Court, till his Revision is finally disposed of;

¶29

iv) The Applicant shall keep the Sessions Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶30

v) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the Sessions Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶31

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶34

4/4

Shabahat Liyakhat Ali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabahat Liyakhat Ali Khan 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

Vijay Kashinath Goradkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Sandeep Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Jafar Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tejas Prakash Phadtare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishna Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sampat Namdeo Ghorpade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra