(1) Cri. Application No. 4892 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4892 of 2011 (In Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2011) Narayan s/o. Bapurao Jagdale, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Daithana, Taluka : Ghansawangi, District : Jalna. .. Applicant / Appellant. versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. S.J. Salgare, Advocate, holding for Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 (2) Cri. Application No. 4892 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Issue notice to the respondent. 3. Learned APP accepts notice for the respondent. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant / appellant (original accused) seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 605/2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him, by way of judgment and order dated 15-10-2011, rendered by the learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 117/2010, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and also convicting him for the (3) Cri. Application No. 4892 of 2011 offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, as well as, directing that the aforesaid substantive sentences to run concurrently. 5. The applicant / appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2011, questioning the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him, and I have admitted the said appeal today only, by passing orders therein separately, and there is no likelihood that the said appeal would be taken up for final hearing in the near future. 6. Moreover, it appears that the substantive sentences imposed upon the applicant are of short term nature. It is submitted that the applicant has deposited the fine amount before the trial court. Moreover, the applicant was on bail during the pendency of trial, and it is submitted, that he has not misused the said liberty granted to him. Besides, the applicant had preferred an application for bail before the trial court, after conviction, and he has been enlarged on bail by suspending substantive sentences inflicted upon him, till appeal period is over. In the circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2011, in the (4) Cri. Application No. 4892 of 2011 interest of justice. 7. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant / appellant (original accused) be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him, on the same terms and conditions, but on executing fresh bond of the same amount, and the present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4892