Suhasini Sunil Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra

* 1/2 * 902-APEAL-815-2003.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.815 OF 2003 Suhasini Sunil Chavan ......Appellant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. Jayesh Kocheta , Advocate for Appellant.

Ms. R.M.Gadhavi, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

DATE :

AUGUST 4, 2017.

AUGUST 4, 2017.

P.C. :

P.C. :

This appeal has been preferred against the This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the learned judgment and order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.36 Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.36 of 1996. By the said judgment and order, the appellant who of 1996. By the said judgment and order, the appellant who was the only accused in the said case was convicted and was the only accused in the said case was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC. The office record sentenced under Section 302 of IPC. The office record shows that against the very same judgment and order, the shows that against the very same judgment and order, the appellant had earlier preferred Criminal Appeal No.

353 of appellant had earlier preferred Criminal Appeal No.353 of 1998, which was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2002 1998, which was dismissed by this Court on 10.1.2002 (Coram: R.K.Batta & S.K.Parkar, JJ.) Thereafter the present (Coram: R.K.Batta & S.K.Parkar, JJ.)

* 2/2 * 902-APEAL-815-2003.doc appeal has been preferred by Advocate Jayesh Kocheta. In appeal has been preferred by Advocate Jayesh Kocheta. In the present appeal, no statement is made as is necessary the present appeal, no statement is made as is necessary that no other appeal or any proceeding has been filed that no other appeal or any proceeding has been filed against the impugned judgment in this Court or any other against the impugned judgment in this Court or any other Court. In the present appeal, Criminal Application No.2403 Court. In the present appeal, Criminal Application No.2403 of 2003 was preferred seeking bail . The said prayer for bail of 2003 was preferred seeking bail . The said prayer for bail was granted. However, fortunately there was delay in bail was granted.

However, fortunately there was delay in bail writ being received by the concerned Sessions Court due to writ being received by the concerned Sessions Court due to which the appellant was not released on bail. All these which the appellant was not released on bail. All these facts are now pointed out to us.

facts are now pointed out to us.

In view of the above, the order granting bail to In view of the above, the order granting bail to the appellant in the present appeal is recalled and this the appellant in the present appeal is recalled and this appeal is also dismissed as infructuous.

appeal is also dismissed as infructuous.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Shivgan