1 Cri.A.905.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.114 OF 2011 Ashok S/o Vitthal Mohite ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT ... Shri.Y.R.Marllapale,Advocate for Applicant- Appellant No. 1(Original Accused No.1) Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagr, A.G.P. for Respondent ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant- Appellant No.1(Original Accused No.1), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2011, suspending substantive sentences inflicted upon him, by the 2 Cri.A.905.11 Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 Beed, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010. It appears that, applicant-appellant No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, and also applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees One Thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, vide Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, by Additional Sessions Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2010, which has been challenged by the applicant- appellant No.1(Original Accused No.1), in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2011. The said Appeal has been admitted by this Court, by order dated 03rd March, 3 Cri.A.905.11 2011. 3. It also appears that, prosecution case mainly revolves around the two dying declarations of victim namely, Pramila W/o Ashok Mohite. First dying declaration was recorded by ASI at about 10.30 a.m., on 15.07.2008 i.e. on the date of incident itself and second dying declaration was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, on the same date. It further appears that victim Pramila was burnt to the extent of 36%, and succumbed to the injuries, on 02.08.2007. According to the learned counsel, there is variance between the two dying declarations. 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial, and has not committed any breach of condition thereof. It is further submitted that substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are of short term sentences, and there is no likelihood of taking up the Appeal 4 Cri.A.905.11 filed by the applicant, for final hearing in coming future, immediately. Hence, learned counsel urged for grant of bail, during pendency of the Appeal. 5. Learned APP opposed the present application vehemently, and submitted that both the dying declarations of the Victim- Pramila explicitly and categorically connected the applicant to the alleged crime, and further submitted that applicant does not deserve bail, and urged that present application preferred by the applicant be dismissed. 6. I have perused the Record and Proceeding with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and considering rival submissions advanced by them, at the outset, the appeal filed by the applicant has been admitted by this Court,on 03.03.2011, challenging the impugned Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, and same is pending. There is no likelihood of taking up the said 5 Cri.A.905.11 appeal for final hearing in near future. 7. Besides that, substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are of short term sentences. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that, the applicant was granted bail during pendency of trial, and there is no grievance by the respondent that applicant committed breach of any of the conditions. Moreover, it is also seen from the record and proceedings that applicant has already deposited fine amount imposed upon him, by the trial Court. 8. Having comprehensive view of the matter, the applicant deserves bail during pendency of the Appeal. It is directed that applicant be released on bail, on same terms and conditions, on which he was released on bail, by the trial Court, but on execution of fresh bond, pending hearing and final disposal of above Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2011, suspending aforesaid substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant till then. Bail to 6 Cri.A.905.11 be furnished before trial Court. 9. Present Criminal Application stands disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK