Suhas Dashrath Jagtap vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 9559 Bom

                      Shubhada S Kadam                                          6 IA 228.2020.doc

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2020
                                                         IN
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.749 OF 2018

                      Suhas Dashrath Jagtap                                  ....Applicant/
                                                                               Appellant
                          Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra                               ....Respondent


                      Mr. Dilip Bodake, advocate for the applicant/appellant.
                      Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State.


                                                   CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
                                                           N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE    : 20th JULY, 2021.


                      P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that

the applicant is before this Court with a prayer for releasing him on

temporary bail . It is not in dispute that the applicant was an accused in

Sessions Case No.845 of 2008 and by the judgment and order dated

5th January, 2018, the learned Additional Session Judge, C.R. No.4,

Pune, was pleased to hold the applicant/accused guilty and awarded

conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of

Digitally the learned Sessions Judge, an appeal is preferred in this Court bearing signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM criminal appeal No.749 of 2018. The appeal was admitted by an order Date:

2021.07.20 17:41:39 +0530 dated 11th June, 2018. The applicant had preferred an application

Shubhada S Kadam 6 IA 228.2020.doc

seeking bail pending appeal being application No.471 of 2018 and vide

order dated 19th July, 2018, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased

to find that no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail during the pendency of the appeal. Resultantly, the application was

rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant, by inviting our attention to

the documents placed on record at Exhibit "B" submitted that the

applicant's father recently suffered paralytic attack so also he is having

40% disability of ears and is thus bed-ridden. The mother of the applicant

is suffering from joint pain and taking treatment at Dr. Deshmukh

Hospital, Barshi and is advised to undergo surgery. It is submitted by

learned counsel for the applicant that as there is no adult member in the

family except the applicant to take care of his parents, the applicant be

released by granting temporary bail. It is also submitted by learned

counsel for the applicant that the applicant had submitted an application

seeking parole/furlough on the ground that the applicant's father is

suffering from paralysis and that application was rejected by the

competent authority.

3. On perusal of the document under caption "Certificate" issued

by S.C.S.M.J. Hospital, Solapur, we find that this certificate firstly only

refers to the 40% disability of the person in respect of hearing capacity

Shubhada S Kadam 6 IA 228.2020.doc

i.e. in both ears. The interesting factor which emerged from the perusal of

this document is that remark against the "Issue date" column at serial

No.6 is mentioned as "permanent". The certificate further shows that

there is only a signature on caption "civil surgeon" and there is no seal

below the signature. Thus, this document under the caption "certificate"

failed to inspire our confidence that it is issued by competent authority for

the reasons above referred. It also failed to satisfy the confidence of the

Court for another reason i.e. if the certificate is to be obtained in relation

to any physical disability, such certificate is always issued by a competent

medical board. The certificate which is placed on record is silent on the

aspect as to whether it was issued by the competent medical board.

Another reason for not accepting this document in support of the

applicant is that it is stated in the application and submitted by learned

counsel for the applicant that the father of the applicant is suffering from

paralysis, however, nowhere in the certificate a reference to the fact that

the father of the applicant suffered paralysis/ paralytic attack is

mentioned.

4. The second ground urged before this Court that the mother of

the applicant is also unable to take care of the father of the applicant

cannot be accepted in the backdrop of certificates placed on record. The

certificates placed on record show that the mother of the applicant had

some fracture in the year 2019 and she was advised surgery under the

Shubhada S Kadam 6 IA 228.2020.doc

certificate issued on 7th September, 2019. It cannot be said that the

mother of the applicant would remain in the same physical condition even

after 2 years of issuance of the certificate dated 7th September, 2019.

Needless to state this is the only certificate placed on record in relation to

the submission of the ailment of the applicant's mother and there is no

latest certificate indicating that the mother of the applicant is still suffering

from the same ailment.

5. Considering all the above mentioned aspects, we are of the

opinion that the application is wholly devoid of any merit and deserves to

be rejected at the threshold and the same is, accordingly, rejected.

( N. R. BORKAR, J.)                            (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)