Disposed

Sagar Satish Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2024IA/1864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convicted u/s 397 IPC for robbery in an auto-rickshaw, accused No.1 sought suspension of remainder of sentence and interim bail in appeal after a prior application was rejected. Having served more than half the sentence and with no misuse of earlier bail shown, the court suspended the remainder of sentence and released him on interim bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Remainder of sentence suspended; applicant released on interim bail on PR bond Rs.25,000 with surety; conditions of monthly police attendance and address/Aadhar submission.

Sagar Satish Shinde vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1(1) IA-1864-2024 C.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHARAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2024.11.18 20:44:04 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1864 OF 2024 IN

¶5

APPEAL No. 456 of 2024

¶6

Sagar Satish Shinde ....Applicant V/S State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent

¶7

¶8

Mr. O. P. Lalwani a/w Ms. Kunda Gaikwad, for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶9

Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent - State

¶10

¶11

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.

¶12

DATE : 18^th NOVEMBER, 2024

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for Respondent/State.

¶15

The Applicant is accused No.1 who is convicted for offence punishable u/s.397 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

¶16

This is a second application filed for suspension of remainder of sentence and grant of interim bail. Earlier by order dated 30/09/2020, this Court had rejected the first application.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has already suffered detention of 4 years, 5 months and 9 days including remission and other benefits, which is more that 50% of

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Husen

¶20

1(1) IA-1864-2024 C.doc

¶21

the sentence awarded. It is submitted and it is an admitted position that during pendency of this application, the Applicant’s father has expired about week ago on 10.11.2024 and his family needs him. That is the reason why this application is taken out for urgent hearing.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on 22/08/2013 at about 1.30 a.m. the informant had returned from his sister’s house to Pune by railway and wanted to go to Markal. Since he did not get PMT bus, he came out of station and inquired with Accused No.2 rickshaw driver for dropping him at Markal. At that time present Applicant/Accused No.1 was already sitting in the rickshaw, who falsely stated that he is also going to Markal. Therefore, Accused No.2 picked up the Informant and took him to Golf-road when he stopped the rickshaw in front of Bombay Spray Printing Garage at about 1.45 a.m. It is the case that Accused No.2 rickshaw driver then alighted from the rickshaw came on back side and sat down near the Informant, when the Applicant took out a knife and pointed it to the neck of the Informant and threatened him. It is the case that Accused No.2 took out Informant’s wallet, two ATM cards, one mobile, and cash of Rs.1080/- and both the Accused threatened the Informant and pushed him out of rickshaw.

¶23

It is further case that the Informant then looking for help, saw a police jeep coming from Ambedkar Chowk, which was stopped by shouting and the incident was narrated. It is the case that Police took the Informant in the jeep and chased the auto rickshaw of which number was taken down by the Informant. When rickshaw was

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Husen

¶26

1(1) IA-1864-2024 C.doc

¶27

spotted at Gunjan Talkies Chowk, Accused Nos.1 & 2 started running and police chased them and caught rickshaw driver Accused No.2. It is the case that present Applicant succeeded in fleeing away.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is no medical evidence even to suggest use of knife and there is no injury found on the Informant. He submitted that the P.W. No.7 panch witness who has deposed in support of recovery of knife, has turned hostile. Indeed no medical evidence is on record.

¶29

Learned APP appearing for Respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed grant of interim bail. He submitted that role of the Applicant is clear and there has been antecedent in the form of offence u/s.185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. He however fairly submits that there are no other antecedents of major offenses against the Appellant.

¶30

Learned counsel for the Applicant also submitted that the Applicant was on bail during trial. From the report submitted by learned APP dated 18/11/2024, it appears that the Appellant was arrested for short duration for about 15 days in 2013 and for about 8 days in 2017. It is submitted that during the rest of the period till the impugned the order of conviction, the Appellant was on bail. It is not brought to the notice of the Court that liberty was misused by the Applicant during the time he was on bail. No other special circumstances are brought to the notice to the Court to warrant rejection for the bail application.

¶31

Report also shows that Applicant has already suffered

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

Husen

¶34

1(1) IA-1864-2024 C.doc

¶35

detention of 4 years, 5 months and 9 days, which is more that half of the sentence. The Appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing in short time.

¶36

In these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence following order.

¶37

i) The interim application is allowed. The remainder of the sentence under impugned order dated 15/05/2019 is suspended for Accused No.1 Sagar Satish Shinde.

¶38

ii) The Applicant Sagar Satish Shinde be released on interim bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/with one or more surety in like amount.

¶39

iii) The Applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station on 1^st and 3^rd Monday of each month until further orders.

¶40

iv) The Applicant is also directed to submit his current and as well as permanent address and his Aadhar Card copy and mobile / contact numbers to the concerned police station.

¶41

12. Interim application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶42

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶43

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

Husen

Sagar Satish Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Satish Shinde 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Malabar Hill Kala Krida Kendra Association Trust vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Asst.Municipal Commissioner

Rita Paresh Dedhia Thr. Poa.Nityanand Mangalprasad Rai vs Eknath Shaniwar Gowari and Others

Vinay R. Shah vs Twilight Litaka Pharma Limited Thr. Its Dir. Mr. Gopal Ramorti and Others

Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. vs Mahananda Sidram Konade and Ors.

Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. vs Mahananda Sidram Konade and Ors.

M/S. Jenita Enterprises and Another vs M/S. P.S. Warehousing Enterprise LLP and Another