Allowed

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023IA/149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim bail application in a criminal appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, considering discrepancies in evidence and prior bail history, directed the release of applicants on bond pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail during pendency of appeal by furnishing PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties.

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

20-IA-149-23-IN-APEAL-35-23.odt

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.149 OF 2023

¶5

IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2013

¶7

Satish Sharadchandra Sane & Anr..... Applicants

¶8

 versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶10

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite, Advocate for Applicants.

¶11

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 16th JANUARY, 2023

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. The Applicants have challenged the Judgment and

¶15

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.18 14:37:52 +0530

¶16

Order dated 19/12/2022 passed by Special Judge, Sangli, in
Special (ACB) Case No.06/2008. The Applicants were convicted
for the offence punishable u/s 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year each.

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

2 / 3 20-IA-149-23-IN-APEAL-35-23.odt

¶19

2. The complainant in this case is P.W.1 Ranjit Rajshirke,

¶20

who was serving as Deputy Vigilance Officer in the Department
of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Pune. The
Applicant No.1 was serving as Deputy Executive Engineer and
the Applicant No.2 was serving as Junior Engineer in this
department. They offered bribe of Rs.5,000/- for not taking
action against them. The complaint was lodged on 20/07/2007
and a trap was laid.

¶21

3. Heard Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that there
is serious discrepancy between the evidence of the Pancha and
the complainant. The recording of demand was not heard in the
Court. The recording is doubtful. The sentence is short. The
Appeal is not likely to be decided within that period. Even after
their conviction, they were granted bail u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. They
were on bail during trial and they have not misused that liberty.

¶23

20-IA-149-23-IN-APEAL-35-23.odt

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

5. Considering these submissions, bail can be granted to

¶26

the Applicants, pending final hearing and disposal of their
Appeal.

¶27

6. Hence, the following order :

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i) During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2023, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the like amount.

¶30

(ii) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sanjay Vitthal Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxmibai Eknath Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ishvar Nagurao Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Chandrakant Kale Vs State of Maharashtra

Shweta Nirpat Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Sharadchandra Sane and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.