(1) Cri. Application No. 2621 of 2011 (In Cri. Appeal No. 312 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 2621 of 2011 (In Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2011) Karbhari s/o. Raoji Lambe, .. Applicant/ Age : 40 years, Appellant Occupation : Agriculture, (Original accused) R/o. Ghat Shendra, Taluka : Kanna, Dist. : Aurangabad. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Investigation Officer, Police Station, Pishor, Taluka : Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 18TH JULY 2011 (2) Cri. Application No. 2621 of 2011 (In Cri. Appeal No. 312 of 2011) COURT'S ORDER : 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. 312/2011, suspending substantive sentence inflicted upon him by way of judgment and order dated 18-6-2011. 3. The applicant herein has filed Criminal Appeal No. 312/2011, against the judgment and order dated 18-6-2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 179/2009, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, and the said appeal has been admitted by me by order passed thereon on 29-6-2011, and the said appeal is pending and there is no likelihood that the said appeal would be taken up for final hearing in the near future. 4. Moreover, maximum substantive sentence inflicted (3) Cri. Application No. 2621 of 2011 (In Cri. Appeal No. 312 of 2011) upon the applicant is to the extent of 5 years, which can be construed as short term sentence relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. (2001 AIR SCW 5130). So also, the applicant was on bail during the pendency of trial, and there is no grievance of the respondent that he misused the said liberty. It is also submitted that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial court. It is further canvassed that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish motive and there is no independent eye witness to the alleged occurrence of the incident. 5. In the circumstances, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal by allowing the present application, in the interest of justice. 6. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant be released on same bail, but on execution of fresh bond, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order dated 18-6-2011, with a direction that the applicant shall give attendance before the Trial Court once in a quarter till the (4) Cri. Application No. 2621 of 2011 (In Cri. Appeal No. 312 of 2011) disposal of the appeal, and the present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/2621ka