Allowed

Priyanka Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Lokare @ Priyanka Dipak Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Dec 2024IA/4108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three applicants, convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act and IPC, filed interim applications seeking suspension of their sentences and enlargement on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeal from the Special Court, Pune.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions for reporting and information of address.

Priyanka Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Lokare @ Priyanka Dipak Deshmukh… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

26-Apeal-1108-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4108 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2024

¶7

Priyanka Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Lokare @ Priyanka Dipak Deshmukh …..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mangal Apppa Ethape & Ors. ….Appellants. Vs. State of Maharashtra …..Respondent WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4109 OF 2024 IN

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2024

¶10

Satish Appa Ethape @ Satish Appa Patil …..Applicant

¶11

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶12

Mangal Apppa Ethape & Ors. ….Appellants. Vs. State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4106 OF 2024 IN

¶15

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2024

¶16

Mangal Appa Ethape …..Applicant

¶17

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶18

1/4

¶19

Suresh

¶20

26-Apeal-1108-2024.doc

¶21

Mangal Apppa Ethape & Ors. ….Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶22

Mr. Salman Pathan for the Applicant in IA-4106 of 2024, IA-4108 of 2024 and IA-4109 of 2024

¶23

Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh Addl. P. P for Respondent-State

¶24

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

¶25

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 4^th March 2025.

¶26

P.C.:-

¶27

By these Interim Applications, the Applicants therein seek suspension of their sentences and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of their aforesaid appeal.

¶28

The Applicants (Original Accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10) vide judgment and order dated 30^th September 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge under The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”), Pune in MCOCA Special Case No.12 of 2017, have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 412, 413 and 414 of the IPC as well as under Sections 3(4), 3(5) and 4 of the MCOC Act. For the said offences, the Applicants are directed to undergo a sentence of 7 years imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000,/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

¶29

2/4

¶30

Suresh

¶31

26-Apeal-1108-2024.doc

¶32

one year. No separate sentences have been awarded for each of the offence.

¶33

The Applicants have, however, been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. Admittedly, the Applicants have undergone more than 50 percent of the sentence i.e. the Applicants have been in custody for more than five and half years out of seven years. The allegation as against the Applicants is that of having received stolen property.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid, the Applications are allowed and the Applicants’ sentences are suspended and they are enlarged on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of their aforesaid Appeal, on the following terms and conditions.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The Applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶37

ii) The Applicants shall report to the trial Court once in six months on the day/date

¶38

3/4

¶39

Suresh

¶40

26-Apeal-1108-2024.doc

¶41

specified by the trial Court, till their Appeal is finally disposed of;

¶42

iii) The Applicants shall keep the trial Court informed of their current address and mobile numbers and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶43

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶44

The Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are accordingly disposed of.

¶45

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶46

order.

¶47

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶48

4/4

¶49

Suresh

Priyanka Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Lokare @ Priyanka Dipak Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Dnyaneshwar @ Mauli Lokare @ Priyanka Dipak Deshmukh 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

Vilas Shankar Kare.and Ors. vs Sub-Divisional Water Conservation Officer. and Ors.

Balkrishna Bhiku Bhosale vs Gouri Balkrishna Bhosale

Heema Jitendra Patel vs Henil Hasmukh Patel

Ankit Bhuwalka vs Idbi Bank Limited

Sunil Charandas Hajare vs Nagsen Krishna Sonare

F.A. Construction Engineers and Contractors Throu. Its Partner Nisar Fateh Mohd Khatri vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Water Resources Dept and Ors.