SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 296

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI
Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

Though learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra opposed appellant to be released on bail we have taken note of the fact that appellant is remaining in custody from 18.1.2000 onwards. The offences alleged against him include Sections 463, 467, 461, 419 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been laid. What remains is only the trial. We do not know how long the trial will take, particularly, seeing the condition of the trial Courts in Maharashtra.

2. When learned Counsel for the State noticed that we are disposed to release the appellant on bail he alternatively pleaded that stringent conditions may be imposed on him because of the allegations that he has some links with the international terrorists gang. We, therefore, impose the following conditions on him :

(1) He shall report to the Worli Police Station, Mumbai on every Monday between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. until further orders; and

(2) If, he is to leave the limits of Mumbai City Corporation he shall take permission from the trial Court.

3. If he is prepared to abide the above conditions he shall be released on b



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top