Bombay High Court
Raghunath Suka Fegade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 April, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2021
Raghunath Sukha Fegade = APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT/S
-----
Mr.MA Tandale,Advocate for Applicant/s;
Mr.NT Bhagat,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 27th April, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP
appearing for respective parties.
2. In this Criminal Application, the
applicant prays for suspension of substantive
sentences and releasing him on bail during pendency
and final hearing of the Criminal Appeal.
3. The applicant is the original accused in
Special (ACB) Case No.2/2014, who has been
convicted and sentenced by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order
dated 30.3.2021, thus, -
a) For the offence under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act and
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 03:07:46 :::
(2)
sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and
to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default,
S.I. for three months;
b) For the offence under Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer
R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.
3,000/-m, in default, S.I. for three
months;
. All the sentences are ordered to run
concurrently.
c) Out of the fine amount of Rs.6,000/-,
an amount of Rs.2,000/- was ordered to be
paid to the complainant as compensation.
4. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicant that the the learned Trial Judge has
misread and misconstrued the evidence brought on
record and erred in convicting and sentencing the
applicant. The prosecution has utterly failed to
prove charge 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 argued that
the sentences awarded to the applicant by the
learned Special Judge are short term sentences.
The applicant was on bail and he has deposited the
fine amount. The learned Advocate further submits
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 03:07:46 :::
(3)
that the appeal involves other legal points/issues,
which the applicant/appellant wants to agitate and
address them at the time of final hearing of the
appeal and the applicant has every hope of success
in the appeal. He would abide by the terms of
bail. Consequently, the applicant prays for
releasing him 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 strongly resisted
the application and supported the reasons assigned
by the learned Sessions Judge while convicting and
imposing the sentences against the applicant. There
is sufficient evidence on record against the
applicant in regard to demand and acceptance of the
bribe. The concerned authority has legally and
validly accorded sanction to the prosecution. The
defence of the applicant is not reliable. The
learned APP submitted that the case is based on the
direct as well as other evidence. The learned
Sessions Judge has properly scanned 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
applicant for several offences, are the short-term
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2021 03:07:46 :::
(4)
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 applicant-
appellant when he has demonstrated that the
material and significant points raised by him in
the appeal are required to be considered at the
time of final hearing of the appeal. Further, the
applicant was on bail, has not misused his liberty
and he 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 applicant 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 applicant by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment
and order dated 30.3.2021 in Special
(ACB) Case No.02/2014, is hereby
suspended till hearing and final disposal
of the appeal.
iii. The applicant be released on
executing PR and SB of Rs.30,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each.
iv. The applicant shall not commit
any criminal activity.
v. The applicant shall remain
present before the learned Trial Judge
once in six months, till final hearing
and disposal of the appeal, commencing
from the date he tenders 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 applicant to
remain present before the Trial Court,
the Trial 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 applicant.
vii. Bail before the Sessions Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
