AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 219 wordsWe have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra.
Leave granted.
The accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 436/34 IPC. He has also been convicted under Section 3(2)(iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Co-accused i.e. accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have already been released on bail. The accused appellant has been in custody for about two years now. The appeal filed before the High Court is not likely to be heard by the High Court on an immediate date.
Taking into account all the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to release the accused appellant on bail. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in connection with Sessions Case No.188 of 2012.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed is free to impose such condition(s) as may be considered appropriate.
Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.