Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Vinod @ Sai D. Ghogale vs The State Of Maharashtra

Supreme Court3 October 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a convict has already served the substantial majority of an imposed sentence (here, more than seven years of a ten-year sentence), and a co-accused in the same matter and in identical legal circumstances has been granted bail, the convict ought to be enlarged on bail pending final determination of an appeal against conviction, unless he is required to be detained in another case.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 6660 OF 2017]

VINOD @ SAI D. GHOGALE Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. It is informed that out of ten years of sentence,

the appellant has served more than seven years in

jail. It is also informed that the co-accused has

been released on bail.

3. While issuing notice on 28.08.2017, this Court

passed the following order :-

“Delay condoned.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accused No. 2, who is exactly similarly placed as the petitioner, has been granted bail, whereas the petitioner has been denied bail.

In view of the above submission, issue notice, returnable in four weeks.”

Signature Not Verified

4. The learned counsel for the State submits that Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.10.06 15:46:27 IST Reason:

the High Court is taking steps to expedite the

hearing, but the fact remains is that, the appellant 2

is similarly placed as the co-accused.

5. Having already served more than seven years, out

of ten years of sentence, we are of the view that the

appellant also needs to be enlarged on bail, if not

required to be detained in any other case.

6. Therefore, the appellant is enlarged on bail on

his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two solvent

sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the trial court.

7. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

October 03, 2017.

3

ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6660/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-03-2017 in CRLA No. 91/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

VINOD @ SAI D. GHOGALE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.75334/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.75335/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.75336/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)

Date : 03-10-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.

Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free