Chandrakant Madhukar Chaudhary v. Milind Hemraj Hingonekar And ANR

Shephali 914.app.497.13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APLICATION NO. 497 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2013 Shri. Chandrakant Madhukar Chaudhary.

....Applicant

Versus

Milind Hemraj Hingonekar and another.

....Respondents ____________ Mr. Mahesh Chadanshiv for the Applicant.

Ms. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J.

Vacation Court.

DATED : DECEMBER 31, 2013.

P.C.:

This Criminal Revision Application is preferred against an order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik. That order is in relation to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 1/ Lakhs, which was dishonored on presentation.

2.

By the order dated 19th December, 2013, the Petitioner's Appeal against his conviction was dismissed. He was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000 in two equal installments, the first by 18th January, 2014 and the second by 18th February, 2014. The Petitioner had also previously deposited an amount of Rs.25,000. At the time of the order dated 19th December 2013, the Petitioner was personally present before the Appellate Court, and was taken into custody and

Shephali 914.app.497.13.doc committed to prison for the remaining period of his sentence. 3.

Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present revision application and taken out this application seeking bail. 4.

It appears that by an order dated 21st April, 2011, the Petitioner had previously also been enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bail bond and a surety bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in a like amount.

5.

In view thereof and since the Petitioner was previosuly granted bail, this application ought to be allowed. The application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(G. S. PATEL, J.)