1 Cri.A.1543.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1543 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2011 Sachin S/o Narhari Sonune Age: 26 Years,Occup.: Service, R/o Jamuna Nagar, Jalna, Tq.and Dist. Jalna, at present Latur. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.P.Urgunde,Advocate for Applicant Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar,APP for Respondent. ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-appellant (original Accused), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2011, suspending substantive sentence inflicted upon him, by the 2 Cri.A.1543.11 Judgment and order dated 29th March, 2011, rendered by the Special Judge, Jalna, in Special Case(PCA) No. 04 of 2009, since thereby the applicant- accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, and accordingly, he is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month and the learned Judge also directed that both substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 3. It appears that, applicant was on bail during the pendency of trial, and there is no grievance of the respondent-State that the applicant has misused the said liberty. Moreover, I have admitted the Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2011, preferred by the applicant-appellant, challenging the conviction and sentence inflicted upon him, by way of above referred judgment and order, by passing separate order therein today 3 Cri.A.1543.11 only. There is no likelihood of taking up the said appeal for hearing, in near future. Moreover, substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant -appellant are of short term sentences, and in that respect, reliance can be placed on Judicial Pronouncement in the case of Kirankumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in ( 2001 AIR SCW 5230 ). 4. Mr. Urgunde, learned counsel for applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant was on bail till today. Besides that, the applicant has been granted temporary bail, by the trial Court, after conviction and sentence, and the said bail is effective till 29th April, 2011. Moreover, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already deposited fine amount before the trial Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the light of aforesaid facts, there is no impediment to grant bail to the applicant, on the same terms, on which the applicant was released on bail during the trial, pending hearing and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him by the aforesaid impugned Judgment and order, dated 29th March, 2011. 4 Cri.A.1543.11 6. In the result, present application is allowed, and it is directed that applicant Sachin Narhari Sonune be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2011, suspending substantive sentences inflicted upon him, by way of impugned Judgment and order dated 29th March, 2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Jalna, on the same terms, on which the applicant was enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the trial, but on execution of fresh bond. 7. The present application stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK