Allowed

Sikandar Ashok Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Jul 2022APPA/982/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail for appellants convicted of under Section 302 IPC. The court noted one appellant had served four years while the other was on bail without breach.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each with sureties, directed to attend police station monthly initially, then quarterly.

Sikandar Ashok Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

aam 1 1 appa 982-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.982 OF 2019

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.865 OF 2019

¶7

1. Sikandar Ashok Shinde &]
2. Rani Sikandar Shinde]…..Applicants/ Appellants
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra]…..Respondent

¶8

Ms.Vilasini Balasubramanian i/by. Mr.Jaydeep Mane for the Applicants
/Appellants.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶10

RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 22nd JULY, 2022.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

.This is an Application for suspension of sentence and releasing

¶14

Applicants on bail.

¶15

2.Applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code (for short,
“I.P.C.”) and are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶16

1/3

¶17

aam 2 1 appa 982-2019.doc

¶18

Solapur, in Sessions Case No.285 of 2018 by its Judgment and Order dated
17th May, 2019.

¶19

3.Perusal of evidence of Vasant Shinde (PW-1), brother and Smt.
Seemabai Ashok Shinde (PW-3), wife of deceased Ashok Shinde indicates
that, on the date of incident, initially a quarrel took place on account of
Applicant No.2 intending to withdraw the case filed by her under the
provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and under Section 376 of I.P.C. against some persons in the
village, to which deceased Ashok Shinde objected by saying that, it was the
prestige issue and the Applicant No.2 should not withdraw the cases. At
that time, Applicant No.1 questioned his father Ashok Shinde (deceased) as
to why he always interposes in their affairs. Deceased Ashok Shinde was
therefore preparing to assault on Applicant No.2. Applicant No.1 therefore
assaulted Ashok Shinde (deceased) on his head with a wooden club which
was lying thereof. Applicant No.2 also picked up a brick lying thereof and
hit on the head of Ashok Shinde (deceased). Ashok Shinde (deceased)
collapsed in a pool of blood.

¶20

The testimony of the said two eye-witnesses prima facie
indicates that, the offence alleged against the Applicants may fall within the
purview of Section 304(II) and may not be punishable under Section 302 of
I.P.C..

¶21

2/3

¶22

aam 3 1 appa 982-2019.doc

¶23

4.Record indicates that, Applicant No.1 has undergone four years
of incarceration, whereas Applicant No.2 was on bail during the pendency
of trial and there is no report of breach of any condition imposed on her.

¶24

5.In view of the above, during the pendency of present Appeal,
substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicants can be suspended and
they can be released on bail.

¶25

6. Hence, the following Order :-

¶26

(i) Applicants/Accused be released on bail in Sessions

¶27

Case No.285 of 2018 on their furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each, with one or two separate local sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(ii) After their release from jail and till final disposal of present Appeal, Applicants are directed to attend Mohol Police Station, District Solapur on every first Monday of the month initially for a period of 1 year and thereafter on every first Monday of every 3^rd month, i.e. 4 times in a year.

¶29

7. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶31

3/3

Sikandar Ashok Shinde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Ashok Shinde 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

Devendra S. Doctor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Sankharlalji Ostwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Govind Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pawan Shrinath Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Govind Kondiba Tanpure Vs Inspector General of Police and Ors.

Sagar Surendra Tandel Vs the State of Maharashtra