1 crap1625.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1625 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2011 Pralhad s/o Shridhar Mane and others ...Applicants/Appellants (original accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri S.G.Ladda, advocate for applicants/appellants nos. 1 to 3 Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notice to the respondent. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondent/State. 2 Heard Shri S.G.Ladda, advocate for applicants/appellants and Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. 3 This is an application preferred by the 2 crap1625.11 applicants/appellant nos. 1 to 3 (original accused), challenging the judgment and order, dated 24.3.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2008, thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for six months each; and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for six months each; and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for one month each; and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for 15 days each; and further directing that the afore said substantive sentences to run concurrently. 4 It appears that the applicants have questioned the afore 3 crap1625.11 convictions and sentences by filing Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2011 before this court, which has been admitted by me today only by passing order separately therein. 5 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is no possibility of taking up the said appeal for final hearing in near future. Moreover, the applicants were on bail during the pendency of Trial and there is no grievance of the respondent that the applicants have misused said liberty granted to them. It is further submitted that the substantive sentences awarded to the applicants are of short term sentences and therefore, the applicants are required to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. Further it is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicants. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court. Moreover, it is submitted that by the learned counsel for the applicants that after conviction, the Trial Court granted bail to the applicants by suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon them, which is effective till 24.4.2011. 6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present application and submitted that the Trial Court has scrutinized and assessed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the 4 crap1625.11 accused are guilty of the offences charged against them, and therefore, convicted and sentenced them, as afore stated. It is further submitted that the view adopted by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the said judgment and order of convictions and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 7 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 24.3.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2008 and it is evident from the impugned judgment that the applicants have deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court. Moreover, admittedly the applicants were on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no grievance of the respondent in respect of any misuse of the said liberty by the applicants. Moreover, after conviction, the Trial Court has enlarged the applicants on bail by suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon them which is effective till 24.4.2011. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicants are of short term sentences. Moreover, and it is apparent that the said appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in near future. There are also no criminal antecedents against the applicants. 5 crap1625.11 8 In the circumstances, considering the totality of the facts, present application deserves to be allowed and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present Criminal Appeal. 9 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant no.1 Pralhad Shridhar Mane; applicant no.2 Shridhar Kondiba Mane; and applicant no. 3 Manabai @ Rukhmanbai Shridhar Mane be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon them by impugned judgment and order, dated 24.3.2011, on the same terms and conditions, on which they were enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, and extending the same till 25.4.2011, but on execution of fresh bonds by each of them and the present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1625.11