1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1036 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2010 Rajesh Kumar s/o Jainarayan Singh, age 38 years, occ. Service, r/o Bajaj Nagar, Aurangabad ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri Prashant Giri, advocate holding for Shri N.S.Ghanekar, advocate for the applicant Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 15th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application, by which the applicant has prayed for his release on bail during the pendency of Criminal 2 Revision Application No. 80 of 2010, wherein he has questioned the legality and correctness of the conviction rendered in S.C.C. No. 29 of 1999, by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Aurangabad on 6.12.2007 and also challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2007 on 9.3.2010, which was preferred by the applicant against the conviction and sentence rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 Learned Trial Judge i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Aurangabad convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for four months and directed to pay the compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- each, in default to suffer further S.I. for one month. The said judgment and order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad and by way of judgment and order dated 9.3.2010, the said appeal came to be allowed partly and the conviction against the applicant was confirmed, but the sentence was modified. The applicant was sentenced to suffer 3 S.I. for two months, but they were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- each to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation amount, to undergo further S.I. for one month. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant has also deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the Trial Court towards the fine amount. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the applicant was on bail, during the pendency of the trial, as well during the pendency of afore said Criminal Appeal. 5 Considering the said aspects, the applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions, on which he was released on bail by the Trial Court, but on furnishing fresh surety and executing fresh P.R. Bond. However, the release warrant be issued only after the applicant depositing amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the Trial Court. 6 Criminal Application No. 1036 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap1036.10