IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1145/2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.179/2009 (Vasanta Darange ..vs. State of Mah) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 2 nd May, 2009 Heard Shri Daga, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Thakre APP for state. This is an application for suspension of substantivesentence of jail sentence and for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. It may be stated that the appellant is held guilty for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C., and has been sentenced accordingly. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as recorded on 29.4.2009 was that the allegations against the present applicant was that he had caught hold the prosecutrix when the other accused committed rape. This statement which is the main allegation against the applicant, is according to him is the omission. The learned APP was directed to make specific statement on this point. However, in reply it does not appear to be referred, though the application is opposed on merits. It will be seen from the statement – evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) that in examination in chief, she has stated that the accused – Vasanta caught her right hand at the time of incident. In cross examination she has stated that she had informed of this fact to the Investigating Officer, but she could not state any reason as to why these facts were not mentioned in her police statement. The Investigating Officer has stated that, she had not made such statement and therefore, it is the case of proved omission regarding the material role allegedly played by the applicant. Apart from this, it appears that the investigating Officer has stated in his cross examination that he had not arranged the Test Identification Parade in respect of the accused person and accused were unknown to the prosecutrix. The applicant was on bail during the trial. It is stated that he has not abused the bail. Sentence is of fixed term, hence he is entitled for suspension of jail sentence, in the interest of justice: Applicant be released on bail, on furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.25000/- subject to conditions that he shall not commit any offence and shall keep the P.S. Chimur informed, about his residence. On furnishing bail and depositing fine amount; substantive sentence sentence imposed against him shall stand suspended. Bail in trial court. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE SMP