Allowed

Prashant Chandrakant Kale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jan 2023IA/4435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment grants bail to an applicant acquitted of caste atrocity charges but convicted under s. 420 IPC. The court, noting the short sentence and prior bail, releases the applicant pending his appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed to release the applicant on bail pending the final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2022 on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties.

Prashant Chandrakant Kale Vs State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

02-IA-4435-22-IN-APEAL-1272-22.odt

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4435 OF 2022
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2022

¶6

Prashant Chandrakant Kale.... Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Kuldeep Nikam i/b. Prasad Avhad, Advocate for Applicant.

¶10

Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. This is an application for bail pending Applicant’s

¶14

Appeal which is admitted. The Applicant was the original
accused No.1 in Special (Atrocity) Case No.5 of 2015 before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. By the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 23/11/2022, the Applicant was acquitted from

¶15

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.17 13:29:46 +0530

¶16

the charges for commission of offence punishable under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities Act’). However, he was

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

2 / 3 02-IA-4435-22-IN-APEAL-1272-22.odt

¶19

convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to suffer imprisonment of one week.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
sentence is short. The Applicant was on bail during trial. He has
not misused that liberty. Even after his conviction, he was
granted bail u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. for a limited period. He submitted
that the evidence itself shows that it is a civil dispute between
the parties and no criminal offence is made out.

¶21

3. Learned APP conceded that the sentence is short.

¶22

4. I have considered these submissions. The Applicant is

¶23

acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under the
Atrocities Act. The sentence is short. He was on bail during trial.
Even after his conviction, he was granted bail u/s 389 of Cr.P.C.
The Appeal is not likely to be decided within that short period.

¶24

3 / 3 02-IA-4435-22-IN-APEAL-1272-22.odt

¶25

Therefore bail can be granted to the Applicant, pending his
Appeal.

¶26

5. Hence, the following order :

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2022, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶29

(ii) Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Prashant Chandrakant Kale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Chandrakant Kale 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

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.

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

Shweta Nirpat Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

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