Shri Gopal Kishan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 109
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 13(1)(e), 13(2)
Key paragraphs
Judgment
Shri Gopal Kishan Sharma ..... Applicant. V/s Union of India & Ors. ...... Respondents Mr. V.M. Advani with Mr. I.M. Ahuja for the applicant. Mr. H.V. Mehta with Mrs. R.A. Navale for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Union of India. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. DATE : 2nd April, 2009 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. P.C:-
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
This is an application for reduction of the bail amount. Applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code & section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has released the applicant on bail in the sum of Rs 10 lacs on execution of P.R. Bonds with solvent surety in the like amount within one month. 2
It is submitted that the condition of furnishing solvent surety of Rs 10 lacs is excessive and there was no reason why such condition should have been imposed by the Trial Court.
In my view also, the condition of furnishing surety in the sum of Rs 10 lacs is excessive. The said amount is reduced to Rs 50,000/- . The said order of the trial court is accordingly modified and now the the applicant shall furnish P.R. Bond of Rs 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The other conditions, however, are not altered. Time to furnish sureties is extended by four weeks.
Operative part
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 13(1)(e), 13(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Apr 2009. The bench was V M KANADE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.