1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2913 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2010 Pratap Dhansing Patil ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri K.C.Sant, advocate for applicant Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30 th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri K.C.Sant, advocate for applicant and Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent. 2 I have admitted Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2010 by order passed separately therein, which has been preferred by the applicant/appellant (original accused) challenging the conviction and sentence inflicted upon him by the judgment and order dated 5.7.2010 rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in 2 Special Case No. 1 of 2008 convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and also convicting him under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month and both the said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking his enlargement on bail pending hearing and final disposal of said Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2010, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him till then. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail during the trial and he has not misused the said liberty. It is also submitted that the applicant has already deposited the fine before the trial Court. It is also canvassed that Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2010 preferred by the applicant has been already admitted and it is not likely that the said appeal is taken up for hearing immediately. It is further submitted that the applicant/appellant has been already released on bail by the trial court till 4 th August, 2010, suspending his substantive sentence and same bail needs to be continued. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail suspending his substantive sentence. It is further submitted that the applicant has been inflicted upon the short sentence of one year only, and therefore, also he is required to be enlarged on bail 3 during the pendency of the appeal. 5 In the light of afore said submissions, since the applicant was on bail during trial and since he has not misused the said liberty, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, and since the short sentence of one year has been inflicted upon the applicant, and since applicant/appellant has been enlarged on bail till 4 th August, 2010 suspending his substantive sentence till then, the same bail is required to be continued on the same terms and conditions, but on furnishing fresh bond. However, prayer regarding suspension of conviction deserves to be rejected since not warranted. 6 In the result, present application is allowed partly and the bail granted to the applicant/appellant by the trial court be continued on the same terms and conditions till disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2010 by suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him till then, but on execution of fresh bond, on the further condition that the applicant shall give attendance before the trial court once in six months till disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2010. 7 However, the prayer regarding the suspension of the conviction of the appellant stands rejected and present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2913.10 4