1 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.635 OF 2010 Yogesh @ Najir Waman Bhosale ...Applicant/ Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.V.V. Purwant for Applicant -Appellant. Mrs.V.R. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:3RD DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. The learned APP for the State has filed affidavit in reply of the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Mohol Police Station. 2. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted the Applicant for the offence punishable under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) However, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 392 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for six months. 3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has good case on merits. He submitted that the Applicant has already undergone more than 2 years of actual sentence and if the period of remission, which the Applicant has actually undergone, is taken into consideration , the Applicant has undergone nearly 50% of the sentence. 4. The learned APP for the State submitted that Applicant is a habitual offender and five cases are pending against the present Applicant and she submitted that grievousness of the offences and also the criminal antecedents of the Applicant be taken into consideration, the application for bail may be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that all these offences pertain to the year 1993-94 and from 1994 onwards no case has been registered 3 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) against him. He submitted that in fact, the complainant assaulted to the accused and he also injured in the said incident, which fact has been admitted by the PW-1 in his statement given before the police. He also submitted that though the witnesses have stated that the other co-accused had snatched Rs.2,000/- from the complainant and the witness, an amount of Rs. 600/- has been recovered from the Applicant. 6. In my view, taking into consideration firstly that the Applicant has undergone nearly 50% of the sentence awarded to him and secondly, taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution which reveals that there are several lacunae and inconsistencies in their statements, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. So far as the five criminal cases which are pending against the present Applicant are concerned, those offences pertaining to the year 1993-94. Even otherwise, merely because the criminal cases are pending against the Applicant, that alone cannot be a ground for rejection of his application for bail. Hence, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4 (Cri appln 1104 of 2010) 7. The Applicant be released on bail on execution of a P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. 8 Application for bail is disposed of. 9. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. Liberty is granted to the Appellant to prepare a private paper book and call for the record and proceedings. (V.M. KANADE J.)