Madhukant Gurudevprasad Pandey v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1763 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION 1087 OF 2022 Madhukant Gurudevprasad Pandey

...Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

...Respondent

....

Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, Advocate for the Applicant in Interim Application. Ms. Sneha B. Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

15th JULY, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

This is an application seeking extension of time to furnish surety of Rs.25,000/- in the like amount and also for depositing the compensation amount as directed by the Appellate Court. 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the surety would be furnished within one week from today and that amount in 20% of compensation as ordered by the Sessions Court would also be deposited within one week.

3.

The applicant had earlier approached this Court by preferring Criminal Writ Petition No.1087 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 8th April, 2022. The petitioner was permitted to furnish the surety as directed by the Sessions Court within a

stipulated period and the bail granted by Sessions court was continued for a period of eight weeks.

4.

Learned Advocate for Respondent/Complainant submit that the time to furnish surety as well as the depositing compensation amount is already over. While disposing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2022, this Court had not extension of time to deposit the compensation amount. This Court had only dealt with the issue relating to furnishing the surety. The said petition was completely silent about the compensation amount which was directed to be deposited by the Sessions Court.

5.

The applicant had preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment of conviction and during the pendency of the appeal the sentence of imprisonment was suspended and bail was granted to the applicant. The Sessions Court had directed that the applicant shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount. i.e. Rs.1,60,000/-. Apparently the applicant has not yet furnished the surety and not deposited the amount.

6.

Considering assurance given by the applicant that the surety would be furnished within one week and compensation amount also would be deposited within one week, the applicant can be permitted to do so.

7.

Time to furnish surety is extended by one week, with modification that petitioner is permitted to furnish two sureties to make up sum of Rs.25,000/-. Time to deposit compensation amount as directed by the Sessions Court is also extended by one week.

8.

The applicant shall furnish fresh address in the appeal pending before the Sessions Court.

9.

Interim Application is disposed of.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)