1 crap1601.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1601 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2011 Uttamrao Ramdas Patil ...Applicant/appellant (original accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri K.C.Sant, advocate for applicant/appellant Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st April, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Issue notice to the respondent. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondent/State. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant/appellant 2 crap1601.11 (original accused), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2011, suspending the substantive sentences inflicted upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, by the judgment and order, dated 28.3.2011, in Special Case (ACB) No. 3 of 2009, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for 1 month; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for 1 month; and also directing that all the afore said substantive sentences to run concurrently. 4 The applicant has questioned the said convictions and sentences inflicted upon him by filing Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2011, which has been admitted by me today only by passing order separately therein. Moreover, there is no likelihood that the said appeal would be taken up for final hearing in near future. 5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution examined in as much as 4 witnesses to substantiate the 3 crap1601.11 charges levelled against the applicant i.e. the complainant, panch, Sanctioning Authority and Investigating Officer. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sanctioning authority Mr. Kunal Kumar was not competent person to grant sanction, since the applicant herein was the Circle Inspector and was promoted as the Naib Tahsildar prior to the date of incident and his removal was vested only with the Government and not with the Sanctioning Authority Mr. Kunal Kumar. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that it is the defence of the applicant that he accepted the alleged amount of Rs.3,000/- towards the arrears of land revenue from the complainant to be paid to Talathi Mahajan, who was on leave on the relevant day i.e. on 29.1.2009, but curiously enough, the prosecution has not recorded the statement of said Talathi Mahajan. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant belongs to different Circle and he has no connection with the land belonging to the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, it is the case of prosecution that the prior demand was allegedly made by the applicant on 21.1.2009, but the applicant was in Mantralaya at Mumbai on the same day and he was not present in his office on the said date. It is further canvassed that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the prior demand. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Judge has not considered the 4 crap1601.11 demand and acceptance and other facets of the case in proper perspective. 6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the present application and countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there was eye witness to the occurrence of incident of alleged trap and the learned Trial Judge has rightly considered all the aspects and convicted and sentenced the accused properly and learned A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment under challenge and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 7 After considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no grievance of the respondent in respect of any misuse of the said liberty by the applicant. Besides that, the substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant, as mentioned herein above, are short term sentences. Moreover, and it is apparent that the said Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant cannot be taken up for final hearing in near future. The applicant has already deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court, which is evident from the copy of the impugned judgment. 5 crap1601.11 Besides that, there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and he is the only earning member in the family and the applicant is of 60 years old. 8 In the circumstances, having the comprehensive view of the matter, present application deserves to be allowed and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present Criminal Appeal. 9 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Uttamrao Ramdas Patil be released on bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 186 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 present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1601.11