1 crap2517.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2517 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2011 Pandurang Rambhau Ingale & ors. ...Applicants (Orig.accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri N.L.Jadhav, advocate for applicants/appellants nos. 1 to 4 Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 This is an application, preferred by the applicants/appellants (original accused), challenging the conviction and sentences inflicted upon them by way of judgment and order, dated 3.6.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2 crap2517.11 2009, thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine further to undergo S.I. for six months; and also convicting each of them for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for one month each; and further directing that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 3 The applicants have questioned the conviction and sentences imposed upon them by filing Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2011 before this court and I have admitted the said appeal today only by passing the order separately therein, and there is no likelihood of taking up the said appeal for final hearing in near future. 4 Moreover, the substantive sentence inflicted upon them is maximum three years, which is a short term sentence, relying upon the judicial pronouncement in the case of Kiram Kumar vs State ov M.P., reported at 2001 AIR SCW 5130. Besides, it is submitted that the applicants were released on bail during pendency of Trial by suspending substantive sentences imposed upon them and the respondent has no grievance that the applicants have misused the said liberty. It is also reported that the applicants have deposited fine amount in the trial Court. 3 crap2517.11 5 Hence, considering all the facts, there is no impediment in enlarging the applicant nos. 1 to 4 on bail during the pendency of appeal. 6 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant nos. 1 to 4 i.e. original accused nos. 2 to 5 be released on same bail, but on execution of fresh bonds, suspending the substantive sentences, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2011, with direction that they shall report before the Trial Court once in a quarter till disposal of said appeal and present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2517.11