1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.4074/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.732/2008 [The State of Maharashtra .vrs. Sk. Hamid s/o Sk. Babbu and one] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for the appellant/State, Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under sections 320 and 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. By judgment dated 10.7.2007 they were acquitted from all the charges by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. After their acquittal, the State preferred appeal challenging their acquittal. By order dated 16.10.2008 this Court granted leave to appeal and 2 admitted the appeal. Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was directed. 3. It is not disputed that even before the respondents received notice, they voluntarily appeared before the Sessions Court and moved an application for bail. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur by order dated 14.11.2008 rejected the application on the ground that they were under-trials during the pendency of the trial. This can't be a reason for rejecting the application for bail particularly when the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court. It is also important to note that after their acquittal, they have not committed any offence and they have roots in the society. In view of this, we think it expedient to release the respondents on bail. Hence the order : 5. The application is allowed. The respondents be released on their executing personal recognizance for Rs.10,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount. 6. To be kept along with Criminal Revision No.224/2007. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande