1 crap1268.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1268 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2011 Rupesh @ Pravin Bhausaheb Bhosale ...Applicant/Appellant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri S.S.Jadhav, advocate for applicant/appellant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 1 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.S.Jadhav, advocate for applicant/appellant and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused no.1), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by the judgment and order, dated 9.3.2011 by the Trial Court. It appears that the applicant 2 crap1268.11 was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for three months; and also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for six months and the afore said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 I have admitted the said appeal today only by passing separate order therein. 4 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court on 9.3.2011 and the applicant was on bail during the pendency of Trial and he has not misused said liberty granted to him. It is further submitted that the substantive sentences awarded to the applicant are of short term, and in the said context, relied upon the case of Kirankumar vs State of M.P., reported at 2001 AIR SCW 5130. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has challenged the conviction and sentences inflicted upon him in the appeal, which has been admitted by this court and there is no possibility of taking 3 crap1268.11 up the said appeal for final hearing in near future, and therefore, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the said appeal. Moreover, it is submitted that the bail granted to the applicant by the Trial Court is effective till 5.4.2011. 5 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present application and submitted that the learned Trial Court has scrutinized and assessed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences charged against him, and therefore, convicted and sentenced him, 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 conviction and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 6 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.3.2011 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2009, and it is evident from the impugned judgment that the applicant has deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court on 9.3.2011 itself. Moreover, admittedly the applicant was 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 applicant. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant for 4 crap1268.11 the offences, with which he is charged, as afore stated, appear to be short term sentences, relying upon the judicial pronouncement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observations made in the case of Kirankumar (supra). 7 In the circumstances, having the comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the opinion that present the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was released on bail by the learned Trial Court, but on execution of fresh bond, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2011 suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant by judgment and order, dated 9.3.2011 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2009. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1268.11