1 crap5536.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5536 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2011 Sakharam Raoji Vasave ...Applicant/ Appellant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for applicant/appellant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notice to the respondent. Shri Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the respondent. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant 2 crap5536.11 (original accused no.1), namely Sakharam Raoji Vasave, seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order, dated 15.3.2011, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 and Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 41 of 1998, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for six months. 4 The applicant has questioned the said conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2011 and same has been admitted by this court by judgment and order, dated 24.3.2011 and there is no likelihood that the said appeal would be taken up for final hearing in near future. Moreover, it is apparent that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is for five years and same appears to be short term sentence, relying upon the case of Kiran Kumar vs State of M.P., 2001 AIR SCW 5130. So also, it appears that the applicant was on bail during the trial and there is no grievance of the respondent that the applicant misused the said liberty. As regards the fine amount, it is apparent that fine of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed upon the applicant by the afore said 3 crap5536.11 judgment and order. In the said context, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant is in jail for last about 18 months, and therefore, he was not able to arrange to deposit the said fine amount, and applicant has not deposited the fine amount so far. Moreover, it is also submitted that the applicant is a poor person, and hence, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail by depositing fine amount of Rs.25,000/- and liberty be granted to him to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.25,000/- within the period of eight weeks thereafter. 5 Having the comprehensive view of the matter and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that applicant – Sakharam Raoji Vasave (original accused No.1) be released on bail on the same terms and conditions, on which he was on bail during the trial, but on execution of fresh bond, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence inflicted upon him by judgment and order, dated 15.3.2011, subject to payment of fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- before the trial Court and it is made clear that the release order shall not be issued to the applicant until fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- is deposited by the applicant before the trial Court and the applicant is permitted to deposit balance 4 crap5536.11 remainder fine amount of Rs.25,000/- within the period of eight weeks thereafter. Needless to say, if the applicant fails to deposit the remainder fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-, within the stipulated period, as afore said, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled automatically, and present application is disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap5536.11