SAIJUDDIN HARUN QURESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE REVATI MOHITE DERE
Judgment date:
Case summary
Bombay High Court judgment dated 2020-12-14. SAIJUDDIN HARUN QURESHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Digitally signed by Nisha S. Nisha S. Chitnis Date: 2020. 12. 15 Chitnis 13:34:25 +0530 1/3 6-ia . 1389. 2020. doc nsc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1389 OF 2020 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 504 OF 2020 Saijuddin Harun Qureshi ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Prashant M. Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Patil, A. P. P for the Respondent – State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. th DATE : 14 DECEMBER, 2020 P. C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks extension of time of two weeks to furnish the surety as directed by this Court, vide clause ii) of rd para 6 of the order dated 3 November, 2020, passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 504 of 2020. 3. Perused the papers. The applicant was enlarged on bail by this 2/3 6-ia . 1389. 2020. doc rd Court (Coram:Revati Mohite Dere, J.
) vide order dated 3 November, 2020, passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 504 of 2020, on certain terms and conditions. The applicant was released on cash bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of four weeks vide the said order and was directed to furnish P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, within the said period of four weeks. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant could not furnish the surety, as directed by this Court vide clause ii) of para rd 6 of the order dated 3 November, 2020, passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 504 of 2020, as the applicant is a severe diabetic patient and due to pandemic was unable to step out and arrange for the surety. He, therefore, orally prays that the time to furnish surety be extended by a period of eight weeks, instead of two weeks as prayed in the application. 5.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and time to furnish the surety, is extended by a period of eight weeks from today. It is made clear, that no further extension will be granted. 6. The Application is allowed and disposed of in above terms. 3/3 6-ia . 1389. 2020. doc 7. All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Source: Bombay High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.