Bombay High Court
Sagar Ramsing Pardeshi And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.899 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.199 OF 2021
1. Sagar Ramsing Pardeshi
and Anr. = APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT/S
-----
Mr.PA Bhosle,Advocate for Applicant/s;
Mr.NT Bhagat,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 9th April, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP
appearing for respective parties.
2. By this Criminal Application, moved under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C., the applicants pray for
suspension of substantive sentences and releasing
them on bail during pendency and final hearing of
the Criminal Appeal.
3. The applicants are the original accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.107/2014, who have
been convicted and sentenced by learned Additional
Sessions Judge Aurangabad, vide judgment and order
dated 08.3.2021, thus -
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 05:36:48 :::
(2)
a) For the offence punishable under
Section 363 read with 34 of IPC,
sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, I.D.
to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month;
4. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicants that the learned Sessions Judge did
not consider the evidence of the complainant that
it was the juvenile/co-accused, who compelled her
to sit on his bike and not the present
applicants/appellants. The juvenile has been
acquitted from the charges as the complainant has
admitted before the JJ Board that she had
mistakenly named the accused in her complaint.
The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate
that though the spot of occurrence was crowded
place, there was no eye witness to the incident
creating doubt about the prosecution story. The
learned Sessions Judge has also failed to
appreciate evidence of the complainant that she did
not raise hue and cry though there were several
vehicles passing nearby them. The prosecution has
utterly failed to prove the charges levelled
against the applicant/s by a cogent and reliable
evidence on record and the conviction is not
sustainable in law and facts of the case. They
would abide by the terms of the bail. The learned
Advocate further submits that the appeal involves
other legal points/issues, which the
applicants/appellants intend to agitate and address
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 05:36:48 :::
(3)
them at the time of final hearing of the appeal and
they have every hope of success in the appeal.
Consequently, the applicants pray for releasing
them on bail by suspending the substantive
sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge on
such terms and conditions as this Court may deem
fit and proper.
5. Per contra, learned APP vehemently
resisted the application and supported the reasons
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while
convicting and imposing the sentences against the
applicants. The learned Sessions Judge has
properly scanned and scrutinized the evidence
brought on record. It is, therefore, submitted that
the application being sans merit, deserves to be
dismissed and it be dismissed accordingly.
6. As it appears from the impugned judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge, particularly the
sentence, that has been awarded against the
applicants for the alleged offences, is the short-
term sentences. In view of the decision in the case
of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. - (2001) 9 SCC
211, benefit will have to be extended to the
applicants-appellants when they have demonstrated
that the material and significant points raised by
them in the appeal are required to be considered at
the time of final hearing of the appeal. In view
of the matter, it can be said that a case is
definitely made out for releasing the applicants on
bail by suspending the substantive sentence during
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 05:36:48 :::
(4)
pendency and final disposal of the appeal. Hence,
following order,-
ORDER
i. The Criminal Application stands
allowed.
ii. The substantive sentence imposed
on the applicants by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide
judgment and order dated 8.3.2021 in
Sessions Case No.107/2014, is hereby
suspended till hearing and final disposal
of the appeal.
iii. The applicants - 1) Sagar
Ramsing Pardeshi; and 2) Ganesh Janardhan
Rathod, be released on their executing PR
and SB of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees fifteen
thousand) each.
iv. The applicants shall not commit
any criminal activity.
v. The applicants shall remain
present before the learned Trial Judge
once in six months, till final hearing
and disposal of the appeal, commencing
from the date they tender bail papers
and, thereafter, the Trial Judge to fix
dates for their subsequent appearances.
vi. In case of two consecutive
defaults on the part of the applicants to
remain present before the Sessions Court,
the Sessions Court to inform this Court
about the same and in that eventuality,
the prosecution would be at liberty to
file an application for cancellation of
the bail granted to the applicants.
vii. Bail before the Sessions Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
