Allowed

Sandip Vishnu Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2024IA/82/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for suspension of sentence pending appeal filed by accused convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Court suspended sentence and enlarged applicant on bail, noting the short sentence, lack of misuse of liberty during trial bail, and pendency of other appeals preventing priority hearing.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicant released on same bail as in trial Court with fresh bonds.

Sandip Vishnu Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:2612

¶2

Urmila Ingale 4-ia-82-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2024 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2024

¶6

Sandip Vishnu Pawar ..Applicant VS. 1. State of Maharashtra 2. CBI ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.Z. Mookhtiar a/w Mr. Bhushan Ove, for the applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶8

Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w Mr. Parikshit Pawar, for CBI.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 17, 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This is an application for suspension of sentence pending the appeal. The appeal has been admitted. The applicant was on bail during trial. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and rightly so that this by itself cannot be a consideration to enlarge the applicant in bail.

¶13

The applicant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)d read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to suffer

¶14

1/3

¶15

Urmila Ingale 4-ia-82-24.doc

¶16

simple imprisonment for 1 year and payment of fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. The fine amount has been paid. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that there is ample evidence on record on the basis of which the trial Court has convicted the applicant. It is submitted that the appeal itself be heard finally instead of enlarging the applicant on bail considering the nature of evidence.

¶17

In my opinion, it is not possible to give a priority hearing of this appeal in view of a large number of appeals which are already pending for final hearing. Considering that the sentence is of 1 year of simple imprisonment and as the appeal is not likely to be heard any time soon, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is nothing on record to indicate that when the appellant was on bail during trial, the applicant has misused the liberty. The sentence is accordingly suspended. Hence, the following order.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

a) The sentence is suspended.

¶20

2/3

¶21

Urmila Ingale 4-ia-82-24.doc

¶22

b) The applicant- Sandip Vishnu Pawar shall be released on same bail as in the trial Court, however, with fresh bonds.

¶23

c) The applicant shall report to the trial Court once in six months, i.e. first Monday of the concerned month, between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. commencing from February 2024.

¶24

The interim application is disposed of in the above

¶25

terms.

¶26

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶27

3/3

Sandip Vishnu Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Vishnu Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Maharashtra Tank Lorry Owners vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Pravin Suresh Sannake Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Virendra Devidas Doke Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Ashraf Sikandar Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mukesh P. Meena Vs Cbi, Acb, Mumbai and Anr.

Mohammed Gouse Karim Vs Cbi, Acb, Mumbai.