IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2010 Gajanan Manohar Kamnpure ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Deoli, Dist. Wardha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R.M.Daga, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.M.Bhagde, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 24 th September , 2010 . Heard. Admit. Call for R & P. Criminal Application (APPA) No. 719/2010 Heard. This application has been filed by the applicant/accused for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200 in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Learned Advocate Mr. R.M.Daga for the applicant has invited my attention to the judgment of the trial court, particularly paragraphs 22 and 23, and submitted as under : a] The learned trial court by considering the evidence on record found that there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant/accused harassed his wife Vaishali in connection with the demand of dowry. b] The learned trial court has observed that the provisions under Section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act in respect of presumption as to dowry death is not at all attracted. c] The prosecution was unable to substantiate its case and on the major aspect of demand of dowry, the prosecution has failed. d] The appellant/accused is an agriculturist and he has to look after the agricultural operations as nobody is there and in view of the fact that he is the only person to look after the agricultural operations for the livelihood of his family, there is no possibility that the applicant would flee away. The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused further submitted that the appellant/accused was throughout on bail during the trial and never misused the liberty granted to him in any manner. Learned Advocate also submitted that the amount of fine has already been paid by the applicant in the trial court. Learned APP has opposed the application. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the quantum of substantive sentence with a limited period, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the application is allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant shall stand suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the applicant/accused be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as were in the trial court with fresh bail bonds. JUDGE Diwale