Vinod @ Sai D. Ghogale vs The State Of Maharashtra
- Neutral2017 INSC 988
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
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