Bombay High Court
Ankush Vitthal Jadhav And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.761 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.154 OF 2021
1. Ankush Vithal Jadhav
and Anr. = APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT/S
-----
Mr.CV Thombre,Advocate for Applicant/s;
Mr.AM Phule,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 20th April, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard Mr.CV Thombre, learned Advocate
for the applicants and Mr. AM Phule, learned APP
appearing for Respondent-State.
2. In this Criminal Application, 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.199/2019, who have
been convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions
Judge, Beed, vide judgment and order dated
5.3.2021, thus -
a) For the offence punishable under
Section 353 read with 34 of IPC,
sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and
to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, I.D. to
suffer further R.I. for one month;
b) For the offences punishable under
Sections 3/181 and 130/177 of MV Act, the
accused No.1 to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in
default, S.I. for one day .
. The above sentences are ordered to
run concurrently.
4. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicants that they have no criminal
antecedents and were falsely implicated. There is
no examination of independent witness by the
prosecution and, therefore, it creates a doubt
about the spot of occurrence which is a crowdy
place on National Highway and surrounded by Hotel.
There is delay in lodging the FIR and there is no
convincing explanation for that. Though charge was
framed under Sections 353, 323 read with 34 of IPC
along with provisions of MV Act, however, charge
under Section 323 was not proved and applicants
were acquitted under Section 323 as there was no
evidence and all the witnesses do not support the
prosecution case. The applicants have deposited the
fine amount and the Court has suspended the
punishment for a period of one month. Short term
sentence is awarded to the applicants. The learned
Sessions Judge has misread and misconstrued the
evidence brought on record and erred in convicting
and sentencing the applicants. 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. The
learned Advocate further submits that the appeal
involves other legal points/issues, which the
applicants/appellants intend to agitate and address
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 prosecution case is based on ocular
evidence. Merely to save them from clutch of law,
false defence is raised by the accused. Over acts
of the accused disclose that the prosecution has
proved those overt acts by leading cogent and
reliable evidence and learned Sessions Judge has
rightly convicted and imposed the sentence against
the applicants/accused and it requires no
interference. 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
sentences, that have been awarded against the
applicants for several offences, are 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. Further, the
applicants were on bail, they have not misused
their liberty and had also deposited the fine
amount. 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 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 Sessions
Judge, Beed, vide judgment and order
dated 5.3.2021 in Sessions Case
No.199/2020, is hereby suspended till
hearing and final disposal of the appeal.
iii. The applicants - 1) Ankush
Vithal Jadhav; and 2) Baliram Namdeo
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
