Allowed

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jan 2023IA/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal. The court noted the offence was old, the applicant remained on bail during trial without misuse, and the appeal might be decided within a year, leading to the release on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties in equal amount; directed to report to police station once a month for six months.

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10-ia-305-23

¶2

1 of 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 305 OF 2023
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2023

¶6

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶7

Smt. Manisha Devkar for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 24 JANUARY 2023

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.This is an application for bail pending final disposal of

¶11

Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2023 preferred by the applicant. The
prosecution case is that, on 31/10/2009, the applicant burst the

¶12

fire crackers in the Court. They were described in Marathi as
‘sutali bomb’. He also distributed some pamphlets. He was
shouting some slogans. He was caught on the spot.

¶13

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.27 10:47:11 +0530

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
incident is old which had taken place in the year 2009. The
sentence is short and the Appeal is not likely to be decided within

¶15

Gokhale

¶16

2 of 410-ia-305-23

¶17

one year. There are no independent witnesses. All the witnesses
are the court employees. She submitted that, even if it is assumed
that he had burst the fire crackers, his state of mind may be taken
into consideration. She submitted that the Charge was not framed
U/s.286 of the I.P.C. and yet he was convicted under that section.
The ingredients of Section 353 of the I.P.C. are not made out.

¶18

3.Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted that
the offence is serious and his conduct should not be condoned.

¶19

4.I have considered these submissions. The applicant was
convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara vide his
Judgment and order dated 30/11/2022 in Sessions Case No.259 of
2019. The applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable U/s.353 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I.
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. He was convicted for
offence punishable U/s.286 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to
suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. He was

¶20

3 of 410-ia-305-23

¶21

acquitted from the charges of offence U/s.336 of the I.P.C. and
under section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

¶22

5.I have considered the submissions of both learned
counsel. I have also perused the copies of the depositions annexed
to this application. The applicant was acquitted from the charges
of Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, because,
according to learned Judge, the permission of the competent
authority to prosecute him under that Act was not properly
proved. He has observed that, though, charge was not framed
U/s.286 of the I.P.C., it is a minor offence compared to Section 336
of the I.P.C. This proposition is debatable. It will have to be decided
whether the offence U/s.353 of the I.P.C. is made out. Having said
that, the offence is not minor, but the State has not taken any
steps. It is for the State to take appropriate steps in connection
with these allegations. The offence is old. Since 2009, there are no
allegations that the applicant has committed any further offence or
caused any disturbance. The applicant was on bail during trial. He
has not misused that liberty. Even after his conviction he was
granted bail under the provision of Section 389 of the Cr.p.c. The

¶23

4 of 410-ia-305-23

¶24

Appeal is not likely to be decided with a period of one year; which
is the major punishment imposed on him. Considering these

¶25

aspects, the applicant can be granted bail pending his Appeal; with
certain conditions.

¶26

6.Hence, the following order:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

i)During pendency and final disposal of Criminal

¶29

Appeal No.67 of 2023, the Applicant is directed to

¶30

be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in

¶31

the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in

¶32

the like amount.

¶33

ii)The Applicant shall report to the concerned police

¶34

station once in a month for a period of six months

¶35

from today.

¶36

iii)The Application is disposed of.

¶37

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Mukinda Ahiwale v. 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

Santosh Baban Bagal Vs State of Maharashtra

Baliram Dagdu Bhokare Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Namdev @ Shrikant Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar S/O N. K. Prasad Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray Ganpat Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manik Chokhaji Khillare Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.