1 Appln 3313-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3313 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3314 OF 2010 Anil Naik .Applicant V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation .Respondents & anr. Mr.Abhaykumar Ostwal, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent  State Ms Seema Rawade, Advocate, for the MCGM CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This application questions the Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30th June, 2010 admitting the applicant to bail by ordering him to furnish P.R.Bond of Rs.3000/-, while entertaining the 2 Appln 3313-2010 appellants' Appeal against appellants' conviction along with two others by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile Parle, Mumbai, whereby the learned Magistrate imposed only sentence of a fine of Rs.5000/- each on the accused. The appellant and co-accused have already paid a fine. The learned Counsel for the applicant is, therefore, right in submitting that there was no warrant for the learned Additional Sessions Judge entertaining the Appeal to order the appellants to furnish any personal recognizance bond, since there was no question of appellants' remaining present in the Appellate Court for hearing. Appellate Court would always be at liberty to consider the Appeal on merits, whether appellant remained present or not by going through the record and should it have confirmed the sentence, which would have entailed only recovery of Rs.5000/- that amount already been deposited by the appellants. Since there is no appeal by the 3 Appln 3313-2010 prosecution seeking any sentence of imprisonment against the appellants, it was unnecessary for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to seek any personal recognizance bond. In view of this, Order dated 30th June, 2010 is set aside. 3. Criminal Application Nos.3313 & 3314 of 2010 are disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)