Allowed

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Apr 2023IA/968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application suspending the applicant's sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment (plus SI) for corruption offences, directing release on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties pending appeal where the trap laid was contested.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine; release on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

(15)ia-968-2023.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2023 IN

¶5

APPEAL NO.289 OF 2023

¶6

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar ] .. Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Ritesh Thobde a/w Changdev Shingade for the Applicant. Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶9

DATE : 19^th April, 2023.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1] By the present Application, the Applicant seek suspension of sentence imposed on him by the impugned Judgment, passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Solapur, on 28.02.2023, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i.d. to undergo SI for 2 months, on both counts.

¶12

2] The learned counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the cross-examination of PW 1-Complainant and Panch Witness-PW 2,

¶13

1/2

¶14

(15)ia-968-2023.doc

¶15

where the complainant has admitted that no trap was laid on 08.05.2017, but in the trap of 09.05.2017, he asked the Accused to take the money and the accused told him to give money to him. He admitted that the accused told him that he will do the work.

¶16

In his cross-examination, he has stated as under :-

¶17

“It is true to say that, accused told me that, he will do the work, let it be.”

¶18

The further relevant admission in the cross-examination is to the effect as under:-

¶19

“It is true to say that, I myself kept money in the pocket of accused and Panch No.2 took money.”

¶20

3] In the wake of above admission, the necessary ingredient of Section 7, the demand, has not been satisfied.

¶21

The above clear admission and its impact on the examination in chief, will have to be appreciated at the time of hearing of Appeal..

¶22

4] However, at present, the Interim Application is allowed. The sentence imposed upon the Applicant by Judgment and order dated 28.02.2023 in Special (ACB) Case No.33/2017 stand suspended.

¶23

The Applicant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶24

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶25

2/2

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkishan Panditrao Kinhalkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaybharti Ganpatbharti Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra

Pravin Vasantrao Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Sitaram Kate Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Foxymorom Media Solutions Private Limited vs Workamp Spaces Private Limited

Barku Ranganath Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Kumar S/O Satish Jhunjhunwala Vs the State of Maharashtra