1 (crim.appln 1375 of 2009 in cri appeal 349 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1375 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST.)1175 OF 2009 (NO.349 OF 2010) Sitaram Upendra Mandal ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ****** Mr.Neelesh V. Kalantri i/b. Mr. Shekhar S. Bhise for Applicant Mr. P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code 2 (crim.appln 1375 of 2009 in cri appeal 349 of 2010) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days. The Applicant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 393 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The Applicant is in jail since 7.11.2008. The Applicant has already undergone two years of actual imprisonment and if the period of remissions which the Applicant has already undergone, is taken into consideration, the Applicant has practically undergone more than 50% of the sentence. 3. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the Applicant had entered the flat of the Complainant and had assaulted him with a butt of pistol and had tied the hands and legs of the Complainant with ropes and put a sticker tape on his mouth. It is further alleged that the Complainant thereafter, informed this fact on mobile to the police officer, who came and arrested the accused on the spot while he was trying to ran away. 3 (crim.appln 1375 of 2009 in cri appeal 349 of 2010) 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the watchman Amol Singh who had apprehended the Accused was not examined by the prosecution. Similarly, there was no recovery of mobile and pistol, found in possession of the accused. Finger prints of the accused were not sent to the Finger Prints Experts. Therefore, he submitted that the Appellant has good case on merits. He submitted that no identification parade was also held by the police since the Applicant had allegedly caught outside the building. 5. Taking into consideration that the Applicant has undergone more than 50% of the sentence and in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case and non- examination of material witness, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail. 6. The Applicant be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in a month. 7. Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)