1409crl512.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2010 AND CRI. APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 660/2010 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 512/2010 (Nilesh Rameshwar Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S. V. Sirupurkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C. N. Adgokar, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2010. Heard. Admit. Call R. & P. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 660/10 : Heard. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant, the applicant was sentenced for a fixed period of imprisonment of four years and fine in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code while he was acquitted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act. Learned Advocate for the applicant made reference to the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & others Vs. State of Gujrat – (1999) 4 SCC 421 and also Angana and another Vs. State of Rajasthan – (2009) 3 SCC 767 to argue that if discretion is not 1409crl512.10.odt 2/2 exercised in favour of the appellant, the appeal itself become infructuous as it would take long time for hearing. Perused the application and also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed the application. The learned A.P.P. unable to state that the appeal can be heard and decided finally in due course. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant the applicant has already paid the amount of fine. In the result. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment only. Substantive sentence imposed on the applicant/appellant is suspended pending final hearing of the appeal. Applicant/appellant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as were in the trial Court, but with fresh bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Civil application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE wwl