1 crap1710.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1710 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2011 Sk. Idris s/o Sk. Nabi ...Applicant/Appellant (original accused) VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Urban Circle, Aurangabad and others ...Respondents (original complainant) ..... Shri S.S.Patil, advocate for applicant/appellant Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent no.3 State. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notices to the respondents. Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate waives service of notice for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondent no.3 State. 2 crap1710.11 2 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant/appellant (original accused), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him by the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalna, by the judgment and order, dated 15.4.2011, in Special Case (Elect) No. 70 of 2008, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 4,23,453/- in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for one month; and also directing that out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs. 1,41,151/- be paid to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Urban Sub- Division, MSEDCL, Jalna; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Electricity Act and sentencing him suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for one month; as well as directing that amount deposited by the accused earlier, if any, with MSEDCL be deducted out of the said fine amount and further directing that the afore said substantive sentences to run concurrently. 3 crap1710.11 4 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has challenged the conviction and sentences inflicted upon him in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2011, which has been admitted by me today only by passing order separately therein, and there is no possibility of taking up the said appeal for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that even during pendency of trial, he was enlarged on bail and there is no grievance of the respondents that the applicant has misused said liberty granted to him. It is further submitted that the substantive sentences awarded to the applicant are of short term sentences and therefore, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the said appeal. It is also canvassed that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. 5 Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application and submitted that the 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 counsel for the respondents 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, 4 crap1710.11 same deserves to be rejected. 6 I have perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction, dated 15.4.2011, as afore stated. As regards the payment of fine amount and suspending the substantive sentences during the pendency of appeal, it is apparent that the loss sustained by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is to the tune of Rs.1,41,151/- and the fine amount imposed upon the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is Rs.4,23,453/- i.e. three times of the loss sustained by respondent nos. 1 and 2., and therefore, direction to suspend the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant, subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by the applicant/appellant before this court, would be reasonable, proper and appropriate. Moreover, admittedly the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of any misuse of the said liberty by the applicant, and also there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are short term sentences. Moreover, and it is apparent that the said appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in near future. 7 In the circumstances, having the comprehensive view of the matter, there is no impediment in allowing the present application 5 crap1710.11 and enlarging the applicant on bail during the pendency of present Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2011, subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lacs only) by the applicant in this court. 8 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Sk. Idris Sk. Nabi be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him, on the same terms and conditions, on which he was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, but on execution of fresh bond, subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in this court, within four weeks. It is made clear that the release order shall be issued after deposit of the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1710.11