The applicant, a person over 75 years old, applied to modify an existing bail clause requiring two solvent sureties following the death of one surety. The court allowed the modification, permitting one solvent surety.
The requirement of two solvent sureties was reduced to one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
05-ia-4293-22
1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4293 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2020
Narayandas @ Narubhai @ Narendra
Laxmidas Thakkar..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent
Mr. Rahul Arote for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 10 JANUARY 2023
PC :
1.This is an application for modification of Clause (i) of
the order dated 15/04/2020. The said order was passed in Interim
application in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2020. The Applicant was
granted bail pending final disposal of the Appeal. Said clause reads
thus:-
“Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the
execution of the substantive sentences stand
suspended on applicant furnishing P. R. bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.11 11:04:15 +0530
Gokhale
2 of 305-ia-4293-22
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge
(MPID Act), Thane.”
2.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, he had
submitted two solvent sureties as directed. However, one of the
sureties Mr. Dinesh Thakkar expired in the meantime on
28/10/2022. Learned counsel is, therefore, praying for
modification of that particular clause, so that, the other solvent
surety furnished by him should be sufficient. He invited my
attention to a similar order passed arising out of the same case in
respect of son of the applicant. That order is at Exhibit ‘D’ of this
application; which was passed on 18/08/2020. At that time,
learned APP had not raised any objection for grant of such relief.
3. Considering this background, the application can be allowed. The applicant is more than 75 year old.
4.Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
i)The Clause (i) of the order dated 15/04/2020
3 of 305-ia-4293-22
which is the subject matter of this particular
application is modified.
ii) The Applicant is permitted to furnish one solvent
surety in stead of two solvent sureties in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- which the applicant has already
furnished.
iii)With this observation the application is disposed
of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to reduce the number of sureties from two to one in an existing bail bond order.
Narayandas @ Narubhai @ Narendra Laxmidas Thakkar
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court