Sagar Ramchandra Bandgar v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 392
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 25, 27
Judgment
Mr.Sandesh Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 16/07/2009 PC:
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent.
The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 60 of 2009 of Islampur Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and two others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 392 read with 34 of IPC and section 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2
Mr Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, invited my attention to the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 27.4.2009 in Criminal Misc. Application No.69 of 2009 releasing Sachin Baban Tate on bail and submitted that the present applicant is entitled for bail on parity. He submitted that there is recovery at the instance of Sachin Tate of a gun that was used in commission of the offence and that his role was more serious. Ms Shinde, learned APP, could not and did not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and fairly submitted that the role of present applicant and the role of Sachin Tate is almost similar and that he can claim bail on parity. In this case, chargesheet has already been filed. Trial is likely to take long time. Keeping that in view and having considered the nature of allegations against the present applicant and that the applicant is hardly 20 years old, in my opinion, continued detention of the applicant is not necessary, Hence, the following order. The applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with two local sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every alternate Saturday 3 between 6 and 7 pm till conclusion of the trial. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 392; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Jul 2009. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
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.