1 crap1743.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1743 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2011 Dinesh Vyankatrao Yadav and anr. ...Applicants/Appellants (original accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.D.Salunke, advocate for applicants/appellants Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notice to the respondent. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respodnent/State. 2 Heard Shri V.D.Salunke, advocate for applicants/appellants and Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. 3 This is an application preferred by the 2 crap1743.11 applicants/appellant nos. 1 and 2 (original accused) seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2011, filed by the applicants, challenging the judgment and order, dated 21.3.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special (Atro) Case No. 9 of 2010, thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer S.I. for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for one month each. 3 It is apparent that the applicants have questioned the afore conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2011 before this court, which has been admitted by me today only by passing separate order therein. 4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 5 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 21.3.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (Atro) Case No. 9 of 2010 and it is evident from the 3 crap1743.11 impugned judgment that the applicants have deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court. Moreover, admittedly the applicants were on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no grievance of the respondent in respect of any misuse of the said liberty by the applicants. Moreover, after conviction, the Trial Court has enlarged the applicants on bail by suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon them on 21.3.2011 itself till the appeal peirod is over. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are short term sentences. Moreover, it is apparent that the said appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in near future. 6 In the circumstances, having the comprehensive view of the matter, present application deserves to be allowed and there is no impediment in enlarging the applicants on bail during the pendency of present Criminal Appeal. 7 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant no.1 Dinesh s/o Vyankatrao Yadav and applicant no.2 Shakil s/o Jalil Kazi be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon them, on the same terms and conditions, on which they were enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, but on execution of fresh bonds by each of them and 4 crap1743.11 the present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1743.11