1 crap1648.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1648 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2011 Noor Khan s/o Mohammad Khan Pathan ...Applicant (original accused) VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Urban Circle, Aurangabad ...Respondent (original complainant) ..... Shri A.R.Kale with Shri U.A.Khekale, advocate for applicant/appellant Shri A.S.Gaikwad h/for Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notices to the respondents. Shri A.S.Gaikwad h/for Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate waives service of notice for respondent. 2 Heard Shri A.R.Kale with Shri U.A.Khekale, advocate for applicant/appellant, Shri A.S.Gaikwad h/for Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate 2 crap1648.11 for the respondent. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant/appellant (original accused), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad, by the judgment and order, dated 21.3.2011, in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2007, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,46,200/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for three months; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Electricity Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer S.I. for one month; and also making clear that the civil liability of the accused was found to be Rs.82,050/-. 4 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has challenged the convictions and sentences inflicted upon him in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2011, which has been admitted by me today only by passing order separately therein, and there is no possibility of taking up the said appeal for final hearing in near future. Besides, learned counsel for the applicant 3 crap1648.11 invited my attention to the fact that the applicant is a permanent resident of Aurangabad and is residing with his family on the address mentioned in the present application and even during pendency of trial, he was enlarged on bail and there is no grievance of the respondent that the applicant has misused said liberty granted to him. Moreover, it is also submitted that the applicant is the only earning member in his family. It is further submitted that the substantive sentences awarded to the applicant are short term sentences and therefore, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the said appeal. It is also canvassed that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. 5 According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it is observed in para no.26 of the impugned judgment that the applicant has already deposited the assessment bill of Rs.82,050/- at Exh.27. Moreover, it is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that after conviction, the learned Trial Judge enlarged the applicant on bail on 21.3.2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him, on the condition of deposit of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Trial Court on 21.3.2011 itself. Thus, it is canvassed that the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.82,050/- towards the assessment bill as 4 crap1648.11 per Exh.27 and amount of Rs.50,000/- on 21.3.2011, totalling Rs. 1,32,050/-, before the Trial Court, 6 Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application and submitted that the Trial Court has scrutinized and assessed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences charged against him, and therefore, convicted and sentenced him, as afore stated. It is further submitted that the view adopted by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with and the learned counsel for the respondents supported the said judgment and order of conviction and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 7 I have perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 21.3.2011 in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2007, and it is evident from the impugned judgment that the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.82,050/- towards the assessment bill as per Exh.27 and amount of Rs.50,000/- on 21.3.2011, totalling Rs. 1,32,050/-, before the Trial Court. Moreover, admittedly the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no grievance of the respondents in respect of any misuse of the said liberty by the 5 crap1648.11 applicant. As also there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are of short term sentences. Moreover, and it is apparent that the said appeal cannot be taken up for final hearing in near future. 8 In the circumstances, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the applicant has deposited more than 50 per cent fine amount, and hence, there is no impediment in allowing the present application and enlarging the applicant on bail during the pendency of present Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2011. 9 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Noor Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him, on the same terms and conditions, on which he was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, but on execution of fresh bond and the present application stands disposed of accordingly. 10 Humdast permitted. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), 6 crap1648.11 JUDGE. dbm/crap1648.11