Ayyub Samruddin Ali vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 3149 Bom

                                                       Cri.Appeal 417 &416&415-2020.doc

           Digitally
           signed by
           Shambhavi
Shambhavi N. Shivgan
N. Shivgan Date:
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           2021.02.17
           15:05:34
           +0530                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     Interim Application No. 326 / 2020
                                                     in
                                       Criminal Appeal No. 417 / 2020

                                                      with

                                     Interim Application No. 740 / 2020
                                                     in
                                       Criminal Appeal No. 415 / 2020

                                                      with

                                     Interim Application No. 331 / 2020
                                                     in
                                       Criminal Appeal No. 416 / 2020

                        Ayyub Samruddin Ali                                     .. Appellant
                             Vs.
                        The State of Maharashtra                                .. Respondent

                                                       ****

Mr. Adwait Bhonde, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for State/ Respondent.

****

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

                                         DATE      : 17th FEBRUARY, 2021.




                                 Cri.Appeal 417 &416&415-2020.doc


P.C. :-

1. Pending appeals vide applications fled in three appeals,

under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

appellant is seeking suspension of sentence and his enlargement

on bail.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 417 / 2020 is preferred against the

impugned judgment and order dated 16th February, 2018 passed in

Sessions Case No. 209 / 2016, wherein he has been convicted

under Sections 328 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for six years and fne of

Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. Appellant has undergone

imprisonment for four years, ten months and fve days.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020 : That while undergoing the

sentence in Sessions Case No. 209/2016, the appellant came to be

convicted in Sessions Case No. 207/2016 vide judgment and order

dated 5th March, 2018 for the ofences punishable under Sections

328 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to

sufer rigorous imprisonment for six years and two years

respectively with fne with a default stipulation.

Cri.Appeal 417 &416&415-2020.doc

4. Criminal Appeal No. 415 / 2020 : That while appellant was

undergoing the sentence imposed in Sessions Case No. 209/2016

and 207/2016, appellant came to be convicted in Sessions Case No.

210 / 2016 vide judgment and order dated 7 th April, 2018 for the

ofences punishable under Sections 328 and 379 of IPC and

sentenced to sufer six years and two years respectively.

5. It may be stated that the learned trial Court, while imposing

the sentence in Sessions Case No. 207/2016 and 210/2016, has not

directed that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with

previous sentence.

6. It may be stated that the frst conviction relates to FIR dated

9th March, 2016, whereas second and third conviction relates to FIR

registered on 18th September, 2015 and 23rd November, 2015 for

the ofences punishable under Sections 328 and 379 of IPC. It may

also be noted that all three convictions were recorded by

Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur.

Cri.Appeal 417 &416&415-2020.doc

7. In Sessions Case No. 209/2016 (corresponding appeal no. 417

/ 2020), appellant has undergone sentence for four years, ten

months and fve days out of six years.

8. Whether the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the

discretion under Section 427 (1) of the Cr.P.C. by directing that

subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous

sentence, is to be examined when appeals would be heard fnally

and not in these proceedings.

9. In the peculiar facts of the case, I am prima facie satisfed

that there are fair chances of appeals being fnally allowed.

Likewise, the appeals are not likely to be heard within reasonable

period of time.

10. In 5consideration of the facts, evidence on record and since

appellant has sufered sentence for four years and ten months out

of six years, pending appeals, the substantive sentence imposed in

Sessions Case No. 209/2016, 207/2016 and 210/2016 passed by

Cri.Appeal 417 &416&415-2020.doc

the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur is suspended and

appellant/applicant in corresponding appeals is directed to be

released on bail on the following conditions.

(i) In each appeal/ application, the appellant shall execute a P.R.

bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like

amount.

(ii) The appellant shall furnish new sureties meaning thereby, he

shall not furnish one and the same person as a surety in more than

one bond.

(iii) The trial Court while releasing the appellant on bail shall

obtain the necessary particulars of his temporary, permanent

residential address and contact details to ensure his presence in

the pending proceedings.

11. Applications are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

NAJEEB..