Bombay High Court
Arshad Hussain Shahjad Hussain ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
:1: 29.ia-3271-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3271 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.995 OF 2022
Arshad Hussain Shahjad Hussain Shaikh ..... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Mr. Subir Sarkar, Advocate (appointed) for the Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 18th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final
hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No.995/2022
preferred by the applicant.
2. Heard Shri Subir Sarkar, learned appointed
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
counsel for the applicant and Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2022.10.19
18:07:29
+0530
for the State.
3. The applicant was convicted and sentenced by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai vide his
judgment and order dated 3.3.2022 passed in Sessions Case
1 of 4
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 29.ia-3271-22.odt
No.104/2019. The applicant was convicted for commission
of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and was
sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of
Rs.100/- and in default to suffer SI for five days.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
out of five years, the applicant is already detained for twenty
months and, therefore, the appeal is not likely to be decided
within the remaining portion of his sentence. He submitted
that on merits the prosecution has relied on the evidence of
Pws-1, 2 & 3. PW-3 is the victim, whose mobile phone was
robbed by the applicant. He submitted that the railway
platform was crowded and no independent witness is
examined. Therefore, it could be a case of mistaken identity
as well.
5. He submitted that the panchas are not examined
and there is nothing to show that the mobile phone
recovered from the applicant was in fact that of the victim
i.e. PW-3.
6. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposed this
2 of 4
:3: 29.ia-3271-22.odt
application. He submitted that the applicant was caught at
the spot and, therefore, on merits the prosecution has a
strong case. Besides this, there are more offences registered
against him vide C.R. No.736/2018 registered at Mumbai
Central Railway Police Station and C.R. No.22/2013
registered at Bandra Railway Police Station. Both the
offences are under Section 379 of IPC. He, therefore,
opposed grant of bail to the applicant.
7. I have considered these submissions. At this
stage it can be seen that the appeal is admitted and all the
questions raised by both sides will have to be decided. Out of
the two offences registered against him, one is of the year
2013 which is quite stale. As far as the present case is
concerned, the applicant is already in custody for more than
twenty months out of the total sentence of five years. The
appeal is not likely to be decided within the balance of the
sentence which the applicant has to undergo.
8. In this view of the matter, the applicant can be
granted bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following
3 of 4
:4: 29.ia-3271-22.odt
order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.995/2022, the applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
ii. The applicant shall attend the concerned police
station once a fortnight for a period of one year
from today.
iii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
4 of 4
