Allowed

Keharsing Harjindarsing Chudda v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024IA/494/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict under Section 302 IPC sought suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal after over 11 years' incarceration. The court noted his acquittal under Section 304-B, non-examination of the key child witness, and the prima facie inadmissible hearsay disclosure relied on at trial, and enlarged him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicant enlarged on bail on PR bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties, subject to periodic reporting to trial court.

Keharsing Harjindarsing Chudda Vs State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 494 OF 2023 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.333 OF 2014

¶5

Keharsing Harjindarsing Chudda… Applicant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of the Sr.P.I.
Nashik Police Station) … Respondent

¶8

Mr.Niranjan S. Mundargi i/b. Ms.Keral Mehta, Advocate for the
Applicant/Appellant.

¶9

Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for Respondent – State.

¶10

 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 9thJANUARY 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASHAHER Date: 2024.01.10 16:55:26 +0530

¶15

2By this Application, the Applicant seeks suspension of

¶16

his sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and
final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal.

¶17

1/6

¶18

Rajeshri Aher

¶19

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶20

3This is the fourth Bail Application preferred by the
Applicant. The applicant’s first Bail Application was withdrawn as
this Court (Coram : P.V. Hardas and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.) was not
inclined to suspend the applicant’s sentence and enlarge him on
bail. The said order is dated 31 October 2014. The applicant’s
subsequent three Bail Applications were for his release on
temporary bail, on account of his parents illness. The said
applications although rejected, were not on merits. The present
application is filed by the Applicant after nine years, seeking
suspension of the sentence and enlargement on bail, having
regard to his long incarceration.

¶21

4Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant is in custody without remission for about 11 years and
8 months. Learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
passed in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2022 [SLP (Cri.)
No.4633/2021], in support of his submission. He submitted that

¶22

2/6

¶23

Rajeshri Aher

¶24

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶25

even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in as much as,
the prime eye witness i.e. the child of the Applicant has not been
examined by the prosecution. He submits that the trial Court
while convicting the Applicant has taken into consideration the
disclosure made by the Applicant’s son to his grandfather i.e.
deceased’s father, which is clearly inadmissible being hearsay
evidence, and, such could not have been relied upon by the
learned Judge. He further submits that the Applicant has been
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the
IPC i.e. dowry death and in these circumstances, the conviction of

¶26

the Applicant cannot be sustained under Section 498 A of the
IPC.

¶27

5Learned APP opposes the Application. He, however,
does not dispute the fact that the Applicant is in custody for
about 11 years and 8 months.

¶28

3/6

¶29

Rajeshri Aher

¶30

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶31

6Perused the papers. The prosecution case rests
entirely on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, the Applicant has
been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of
the IPC. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has not examined
the Applicant’s son an alleged witness to the incident i.e. pushing
of his mother by the Applicant. It appears that the learned Judge
has whilst convicting the Applicant, has taken into consideration
the disclosure made by Applicant’s son to the grandfather i.e. the
complainant and convicted him on the basis of the said
information received. Prima facie, the disclosure being hearsay
could not have been relied upon by the learned Judge being
hearsay. Be that as it may, the Applicant is in custody for about
more than 11 and ½ year.

¶32

6Considering the aforesaid, the Application is allowed
and the Applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on
bail pending the hearing and final disposal of his Appeal on the
following terms and conditions.

¶33

4/6

¶34

Rajeshri Aher

¶35

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶36

:: O R D E R ::

¶37

(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶38

(ii)The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in four months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his appeal is finally disposed of;

¶39

(iii)The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶40

(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.

¶41

7The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms
and is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

5/6

¶43

Rajeshri Aher

¶44

25 ia 494 of 2023.doc

¶45

8All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of

¶46

this order.

¶47

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶48

6/6

¶49

Rajeshri Aher

Keharsing Harjindarsing Chudda v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keharsing Harjindarsing Chudda 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

Bharat Baliram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Laxman Kamadi Vs State of Maharashtra

Siraj Ibrahim Chanawalla Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. P Vijaykumar and Compnay Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prathmesh Chandrakant Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranveer Zunzarrao Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.