1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2011 MOHD. AKIL MOHD. SHAGIR ..VERSUS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., THROUGH P.S.O., PS., SHIRAJGAON, TAH. CHANDURBAZAR, DIST. AMRAVATI Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Ila Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for non-applicant /State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 13 th OCTO BER , 2011 . Heard Ms. Ila Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. B. Yengal, the learned A.P.P. for non- applicant/State. ADMIT. Mr. D. B. Yengal, the learned APP waives notice of hearing on behalf of the non-applicant/State. Call for R & P. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 190 OF 2011. Heard Ms. Ila Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. B. Yengal, the learned A.P.P. for non- applicant/State. This is an application filed by the applicant/accused for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the revision application and for releasing him on bail. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant 2 Sessions Judge, Achalpur, dated 13.05.2003 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2002 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and further directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, which was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 03.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2003. Both these judgments and orders are impugned in the present Revision Application. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has raised substantial grounds to challenge the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. She has submitted that the contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the witnesses, which goes to the root of the matter, are not properly considered by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an agricultural labour and he is the sole bread winner of the family. She also submits that during the pendency of the trial and the appeal, the applicant was on bail and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has misused the liberty granted to him, in any manner or committed breach of any condition. She further submits that the revision may take considerable time for its disposal. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Per contra, the learned APP for the non- applicant/State has opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the application. Perused the impugned judgments and orders. Though, the learned APP has opposed the application, 3 however, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the application is allowed. The substantive sentence awarded by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur by judgment and order dated 13.05.2003 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, by judgment and order dated 03.08.2011, stands suspended during the pendency of this revision application. The applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as were before the lower appellate Court with fresh bail bonds. The criminal application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE Diwale