1 crap2940.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2940 Of 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2011 Nitin s/o Vijay Kamble ...Applicant (original accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for applicant Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 11 th July, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Revision Application No. 146 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him by way of judgment and order, dated 24.8.2007 in R.T.C. No. 43 of 2005, by the learned 2 crap2940.11 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed and convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 15 days; and confirmed by the judgment and order, dated 23.6.2011, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2007 preferred by the applicant herein before the said Court. 3 It appears that the applicant (original accused) has questioned the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way of afore said judgment and order, dated 24.8.2007 passed in R.T.C. No. 43 of 2005, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed for the offence mentioned as afore said and confirmed by the judgment and order, dated 23.6.2011, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2007. 4 The applicant contends that at the time of pronouncement of judgment by the First Appellate Court on 23.6.2011, he could not remain present before the said Court, since his infant child was suffering from Gastro-entritus. However, thereafter he surrendered before the Court and presently he is in custody undergoing the 3 crap2940.11 sentence. It is the contention of the applicant that he was on bail during the pendency of trial, as well as during pendency of appeal filed by him before the First Appellate Court. The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is R.I. for two months and it is submitted that the same is a short term sentence. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has already deposited the fine amount before the First Appellate Court. Moreover, there is no likelihood that the Revision Application filed by the applicant will be taken up for final hearing in near future. In the circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed. 5 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on the same bail, but on execution of fresh bond, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Revision Application No. 146 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him, and Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. 6 Humdast permitted. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2940.11