1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2011 VIJAY NAIBRAO JADHAV ..VERSUS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P.S.O., P.S., BUldhana Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. tor the non-applicant/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 28 th SEPTEMBER , 2011 . Heard Mr. Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. J. Khan, the learned A.P.P. for the non- applicant. ADMIT. Call for R & P. Mr. Khan, learned APP waives notice of hearing on behalf of the non-applicant/State. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 181 OF 2011. Heard Mr. Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. J. Khan, the learned A.P.P. for the non- applicant. By this criminal application, the applicant is seeking for suspension of sentence pending the revision application and releasing him on bail. By the judgment and order dated 05.03.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court NO.2, 2 Buldhana, the applicant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 495 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. The appeal filed by the applicant/accused came to be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded the trial Court has been confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana by the judgment and order dated 19.09.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2008. Both these judgments and orders are impugned in the present Revision Application. Mr. Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has raised various grounds challenging the impugned judgments and orders including that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and ultimately came to an erroneous conclusion. The learned counsel further submits that the sentence awarded to the applicant can be termed as a short sentence and the revision application may take considerable time for its disposal. He submits that the applicant is a teacher and is a sole bread winner of the family. He submits that the aged parents of the applicant are depending on him. He states that the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial as well as pendency of the appeal and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has misused the liberty granted to him or has committed breach of any condition and as such, the learned counsel prays for suspension of substantive sentence and releasing the applicant on bail. Per contra, the learned APP for the non- applicant/State has opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the application. 3 Perused the impugned judgments and orders. Though, the learned APP has opposed the application, however, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the quantum of substantive sentence which is for a limited period, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the application is allowed. The substantive sentence awarded by the learned J.M.F.C, Court No.2, Buldhana by judgment and order dated 05.3.2008 and confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana, by judgment and order dated 19.09.2011, stands suspended during the pendency of this revision application. The applicant Vijay Naibrao Jadhav 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. Hamdast permitted. JUDGE Diwale