{"id":10695,"date":"2009-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-05T23:22:04","modified_gmt":"2017-05-05T17:52:04","slug":"smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bilal Nazki, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n<pre>            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.92 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                             \n    Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar           ]\n    Age - 44 years,Occupation - Service ]\n    R\/at.4-D, Raghavwadi, French Bridge, ]\n    MUMBAI.                              ]      .. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n             V\/s.\n\n    1.   The State of Maharashtra        ]\n                                         ]\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n    2.   Sambhajirao Bapusaheb Patil     ]\n         Age - 42 years, Occu. -Service, ]\n                       \n         R\/at.Room No.4, Ground Floor,   ]\n         C-Type Mangal Kalash, Cholegaon,]\n         Thakurli (E), Dombiwali         ]\n                      \n         Tal.- Kalyan, District - Thane. ]    .. Respondents\n\n\n\n    Mr.R.G.Panchal for the Petitioner.\n           \n\n\n    Mr.Shirish Gupte, Amicus curie.\n    Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for Respondent No.4.\n        \n\n\n\n                           CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       A.R.JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n<p>                           DATED : MARCH 25TH, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :-\n<\/p>\n<p>             This Petition was filed challenging the action<br \/>\n    of the learned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate which<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               1<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     has     resulted     in     imprisonment         of     the       Petitioner.<br \/>\n    Petitioner was sentenced to six months imprisonment and<br \/>\n    also     fine      Rs.1,75,000\/-.            Out       of      this         amount<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.1,73,000\/- were to be paid as compensation to the<br \/>\n    complainant.        The Complaint was under section 138 A of<\/p>\n<p>    Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.           It    appears     that       when   the        Petitioner            was<br \/>\n    sentenced, she filed an application for suspension of<br \/>\n    sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.           The learned Magistrate passed an order on the<\/p>\n<p>    back of the application in the following words :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 &#8220;accused has not paid the fine amount. Hence,<br \/>\n                 substantive sentence could not be suspended.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                 Hence, the application is rejected&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Therefore, the Petitioner moved the learned District<br \/>\n    Judge &#8211; 3 and Additional Sessions Judge,                          Kalyan, but<\/p>\n<p>    he     did   not    pass    any   order      and      according           to      the<\/p>\n<p>    Petitioner, verbally, told the Petitioner that he was<br \/>\n    in charge of four courts so he could not pass any<br \/>\n    order.       Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 17th<\/p>\n<p>    January, 2009 and ordered release of the                            Petitioner<br \/>\n    on      bail       and    sought explanation from the learned<\/p>\n<p>    Judges.         After    the   explanations           were     received,            by<\/p>\n<p>    another order we requested Shri Gupte learned counsel,<br \/>\n    to assist in the matter as Amicus Curie.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     4.          Before we go to the provisions of law which<br \/>\n    need to be discussed, it will be profitable to have a<br \/>\n    glimpse     on   the       explanation.            The   explanation              of<\/p>\n<p>    Additional Sessions Judge is that he relied on                          various<br \/>\n    Judgments of the Apex Court which held that it was<\/p>\n<p>    advisable        that the Court imposes conditions that the<br \/>\n    amount of fine be remitted in Court before bail is<\/p>\n<p>    granted.         He    stated      that   this     Court      should          have<br \/>\n    immediately passed an order of releasing the accused on<br \/>\n    bail by passing additional order of payment of the part<br \/>\n    of   the     amount.           However,      the     counsel         for        the<\/p>\n<p>    Appellant\/Petitioner wanted to be heard in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<pre>    He   gave    time     to\n                                 \n                                address\n<\/pre>\n<p>    reached for hearing at about 6.00 p.m.<br \/>\n                                          the    Court    when       the<br \/>\n                                                                  The Advocate<br \/>\n                                                                              matter<\/p>\n<p>    was heard for almost 15 minutes and                  inspite of asking<br \/>\n    him to be brief, he had done nothing except delivering<br \/>\n    philosophical         speech.       Hence    hearing       could        not       be<\/p>\n<p>    concluded.        The matter was adjourned to 20th January,<br \/>\n    2009.      The Appeal has been filed on 30th January, 2009<\/p>\n<p>    which meant that for seven days the Petitioner had to<br \/>\n    remain in custody before the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n<p>    could hear the counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5.          The learned Sessions Judge who was in charge<br \/>\n    of various courts, thereafter, could not look into the<\/p>\n<p>    grievance of the Petitioner.                But, it is crystal clear<br \/>\n    that the learned Sessions Judge did not pass any order<br \/>\n    on   the    application       of   bail   moved     by   the      Petitioner<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     alongwith her appeal.         Explanation of the Magistrate is<br \/>\n    that, he was of the view that Section 389 of Criminal<br \/>\n    Procedure Code       would not authorize him to suspend the<\/p>\n<p>    sentence, if the sentence was of imprisonment and also<br \/>\n    of fine.      The sentence can only be suspended if the<\/p>\n<p>    fine   was   paid.       He    stated   that     he    announced            the<br \/>\n    Judgment at 12.30 p.m.         At that time, the accused was<\/p>\n<p>    present in the Court.          The Judgment was explained to<br \/>\n    the accused.       The accused was directed to arrange for<br \/>\n    fine amount, if she wanted suspension of sentence. But,<br \/>\n    till 5.30 p.m. she failed to deposit the fine amount<\/p>\n<p>    and therefore, the order was passed which is already<br \/>\n    quoted above.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         It is not expected         from any person to<br \/>\n    arrange an amount of Rs.1,73,000\/- immediately after<\/p>\n<p>    Judgment     was   pronounced.        Section    389      of      Criminal<br \/>\n    Procedure Code read thus :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person,<br \/>\n            the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be<\/p>\n<p>            recorded by it in writing, order that the<br \/>\n            execution of the sentence or order appealed<br \/>\n            against be suspended and, also, if he is in<br \/>\n            confinement, that he be released on bail, or on<\/p>\n<p>            his own bond.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            (2) The power conferred by this section on an<br \/>\n            Appellate Court may be exercised also by the<br \/>\n            High Court in the case of an appeal by convicted<br \/>\n            person to a Court subordinate thereto.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the<br \/>\n            Court by which he is convicted that he intends<br \/>\n            to present an appeal, the Court shall, &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                        (i) where such convicted person, being<br \/>\n                  on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a<br \/>\n                  term not exceeding three years, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          (ii) where the offence of which such<br \/>\n                     person has been convicted is a bailable<\/p>\n<p>                     one, and he is on bail,<\/p>\n<p>             order that the convicted person be released on<br \/>\n             bail unless there are special reasons for<\/p>\n<p>             refusing bail, for such period as will afford<br \/>\n             sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain<br \/>\n             the orders of the Appellate Court under sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             section (1), and the sentence of imprisonment<br \/>\n             shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be<\/p>\n<p>             deemed to be suspended.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced<br \/>\n             to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment<br \/>\n             for lie, the time during which he is so released<\/p>\n<p>             shall be excluded in computing the term for<br \/>\n             which he is so sentenced.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Various Judgments have been cited before us, the latest<\/p>\n<p>    being    (2007)6 S.C.C. 528 in case of Dilip S. Dahanukar<\/p>\n<p>    V\/s.     Kotak     Mahindra      Co.Ltd. &amp; Anr.                         After<br \/>\n    considering            the law         laid      down         by various<br \/>\n    Judgments          including       the        Judgment       referred to<\/p>\n<p>    above,        we are of the view that once a person is<br \/>\n    convicted        and   sentenced       section      389        would           be<br \/>\n    applicable, the Judge has to pass an order of bail<\/p>\n<p>    mandatorily, but, this order in               case of fine could be<br \/>\n    subject to conditions.         Therefore, the proper course in<br \/>\n    this case would have been the Magistrate passing the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                      ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     order for bail subject                to           payment of fine in full<br \/>\n    or in part as he would deem fit in the circumstances<br \/>\n    of   the    case     by    giving    reasons.           If      the     Magistrate<\/p>\n<p>    failed to do so when the bail application had been<br \/>\n    filed before him, he should follow the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6.            The    learned      Judge       did    not     pass       any       order<\/p>\n<p>    granting bail subject to payment of fine.                           As a result,<br \/>\n    the petitioner had to undergo imprisonment for more<br \/>\n    than a week.          In these circumstances, considering the<br \/>\n    law and import of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n<p>    Code,      we   hold       that     the       person       if     sentenced            to<\/p>\n<p>    imprisonment which is covered under Section 389 of the<br \/>\n    Criminal Procedure Court, the Magistrate should offer<\/p>\n<p>    bail    and     if   the    sentence          is    coupled      with       fine        or<br \/>\n    compensation the Magistrate may offer bail by imposing<br \/>\n    appropriate conditions as he deems fit in the facts and<\/p>\n<p>    circumstances of the case regarding payment of fine in<br \/>\n    full or in part.           In these case, we have already bailed<\/p>\n<p>    out the petitioner.               She would continue to remain on<br \/>\n    bail till her appeal is disposed of.                            But, she shall<\/p>\n<p>    deposit the amount of Rs.50,000\/- within four weeks<br \/>\n    from today and shall give a personal bond.                                     If the<br \/>\n    amount is not deposited as directed the appellate court<br \/>\n    may pass appropriate orders.                       After the amounts are<\/p>\n<p>    deposited in terms of this order, the appellate court<br \/>\n    may decide as to whether the amount shall remain in<br \/>\n    Court or be handed over to the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     7.         Before parting, we would like to record the<br \/>\n    valuable    assistance   given   by   the      Senior          Counsel<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.Shirish Gupte (Amicus curie).\n<\/p>\n<p>                                           (BILAL NAZKI,J.)<\/p>\n<p>                                           (A.R. JOSHI, J.)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:27:25 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 Bench: Bilal Nazki, A. R. Joshi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.92 OF 2009 Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar ] Age &#8211; 44 years,Occupation &#8211; Service ] R\/at.4-D, Raghavwadi, French Bridge, ] MUMBAI. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1244,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009"},"wordCount":1244,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009","name":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-05T17:52:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vandana-nursinh-kelkar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Vandana Nursinh Kelkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10695\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}