Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 461 (BOM)

Ahmed Mohd. Jilani Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

2010-03-23

B.H.MARLAPALLE, MRIDULA BHATKAR

body2010
Judgment This is an application for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2006. 2. The applicant was accused no.2 in Sessions Case No.849 of 2005 and along with accused no.1 he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 read with Section 34 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer RI for seven years. The applicant had approached this Court in Criminal Application No.1107 of 2006 for being released on bail and the said application was rejected on 8/1/2007. Hence this is the second application for bail by the applicant. 3. As per the prosecution case on 24/8/2005 (past mid night) the applicant along with three other accused boarded an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.MH-03-AA-4166 which was being driven by Afroz Malik - PW 1 and threatened the rickshaw driver with knife and robbed him. 4. We have perused the oral testimony of PW 1, PW 2 - Sadanand Bharti, PW 3 - Rajan Parab, PW 5 - Dr.Chandrasen Kadam, Medical Officer and PW 6 - Ashok Dhavale, the I.O. PW 1 did not state before the Court in his oral depositions that any bodily injury was sustained by him and that the applicant had inflicted such an injury by the knife which was shown to him. He also did not say that he was robbed of any cash amount. It is also not his case that more than four accused were in his rickshaw and had committed the crime. The evidence of all these witnesses considered prima facie indicates that the applicant deserves to be released on bail by suspending the order of sentence and Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2006 filed by the applicant is likely to remain pending for more than a year. The appeal is not yet ready for final hearing and as of now we are hearing the appeals of the year 2000 of those accused who are in jail. The applicant was taken in custody on 24/8/2005, he was not on bail during trial. 5. Hence this application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The appeal is not yet ready for final hearing and as of now we are hearing the appeals of the year 2000 of those accused who are in jail. The applicant was taken in custody on 24/8/2005, he was not on bail during trial. 5. Hence this application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail, if not required in connection with any other case, during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2006 on furnishing two sureties and PR bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2006 be clubbed and heard with Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2009. Hearing of appeals is expedited.