1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1102 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2009 Gurudas Sheshgiri Kamat ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Sudeep Pasbola for Applicant Mr.J.P. Kharge -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for two years. 2 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has paid the fine amount of Rs.25,000/.- It is also submitted that the Applicant has already undergone 1 year and 4 months out of the total sentence of 5 years awarded by the Trial Court. It is also submitted that prosecutrix is residing at Panvel whereas the Applicant herein is residing at Ghatkopar. It is submitted that the Applicant has a good case on merit. 4. The Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail filed by the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant was below 16 years of age and finding to that effect has been recorded by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore it was urged that bail may not be granted to the Applicant. 3 5. In my view, since the Applicant has already undergone 1 year and 4 months of sentence and appeal is not likely to be heard immediately in near future. In view of various judgments of the Apex Court, in which it has been held that the Appellant cannot be kept in jail indefinitely during the pendency of the appeal, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. Secondly, the Applicant is residing at Ghatkopar whereas the prosecutrix is residing at Pawai and, as such, there is no possibility of the Applicant harassing the prosecutrix during pendency of the appeal. Thirdly, the Applicant has already been deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- which was the fine imposed by the Sessions Court. In my view, it would be appropriate if an amount of Rs.20,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.25,000/- is paid to the prosecutrix in view of the provision of section 357(4) of the Cr.P.C. 6. As a result, the application is allowed. The 4 Applicant be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. He shall not try to contact the prosecutrix. Out of the fine amount which was deposited by the Accused, amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix without any surety and on execution of personal bond. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)