(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3504 of 2011 (In Criminal Revision Application No. 179 of 2011) Chandrakant s/o. Shahu Jagdale, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hiwara, Taluka : Bhoom, .. Applicant District : Osmanabad. (Original accused) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Suresh s/o. Gopinath Gagdale, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hiwara, at present Mankeshwar, .. Respondents Taluka : Bhoom, (No.2 - Original District : Osmanabad. complainant) ....................... Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Issue notice to respondent no.1. 3. Learned APP Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar accepts notice for respondent no.1. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) seeking bail during the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. 179/2011, suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him. 5. The applicant has questioned the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order dated 13-3-2009, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhoom, in S.C.C. No. 838/2006, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and also assailed the judgment and order dated 3-8-2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2009, thereby partly allowing the said appeal, and confirming the conviction recorded against the applicant under Section 138 of the (3) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentencing to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days by reducing three months' imprisonment, but confirming the amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid by the applicant to the complainant, in Criminal Revision Application, and the said revision is pending before this Court, and there is no likelihood that it would be taken up for final hearing in the near future. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has canvassed that the applicant was on bail during trial, as well as, during the pendency of appeal and there is no grievance of the respondent that he misused the said liberty. He has also submitted that the substantive sentence inflicted upon the applicant is a short terms sentence and the applicant is only earning member in the family. 7. In the circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed, however, subject to deposit of 50 % amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 20,000/- by the applicant, before the learned Trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today. 8. In the circumstances, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on same bail, but on execution of fresh bond before the learned Trial Court, during the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No. (4) 179/2011, suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him, however, with a condition that the applicant shall deposit 50 % of the compensation i.e. Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) before the learned Trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, and it is made clear that if the applicant does not deposit 50 % amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 20,000/- within the stipulated period, as aforesaid, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled automatically, and the present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order duly signed by Court Shirastedar. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3504