Disposed

Jayesh Devendra Chande v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2024IA/1353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sentenced to six months and taken into custody after appeal was decided sought bail pending revision. Court found arguable questions, issued Rule on the revision application, and enlarged him on same bail terms with fresh bonds, permitting cash surety of Rs.10,000 for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued on revision application; applicant enlarged on bail with fresh bonds; cash surety of Rs.10,000 permitted for eight weeks.

Jayesh Devendra Chande Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24:BHC-AS:2

¶2

Diksha Rane 906. REVN 175-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175/2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1353/2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175/2024

¶5

JAYESH DEVENDRA CHANDE ..APPLICANT

¶6

VS.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Adv. Subir Sarkar for the applicant.

¶9

Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 2, 2024.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175/2024

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

2. Learned APP for the State opposed the revision application. It is submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence there is no reason to warrant interference.

¶16

3. However, I find that arguable questions are raised.

¶17

1/3

¶18

Diksha Rane 906. REVN 175-24.doc

¶19

Hence, Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1.

¶20

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1353/2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175/2024

¶21

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

5. Learned APP opposed the application.

¶23

6. The revision has been admitted. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 9/2/2024 passed by the trial Court, the applicant is taken in custody. The sentence is for a period of six months. The fine amount has been paid. The applicant was on bail during pendency of the appeal. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had misused the liberty while on bail. Considering the short sentence and now that the applicant is in custody almost for a period of two months after the appeal was decided, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶24

7. The applicant be enlarged on same bail as before the trial Court but with fresh bonds.

¶25

8. The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of surety for a period of eight weeks.

¶26

2/3

¶27

Diksha Rane 906. REVN 175-24.doc

¶28

9. The applicant to attend the final hearing of the

¶29

revision application.

¶30

10. The interim application is disposed of.

¶31

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶32

3/3

Jayesh Devendra Chande v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Devendra Chande 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

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs State of Maharashtra

Wasif Daud Hamdule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mayur @ Rakesh Gulab Kumbare Vs State of Maharashtra

Hanmant Subharao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Deepak Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjeev Suryakant Palande Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Nar