Bombay High Court
Sandip @ Dampya Sanjay Gaud vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2021
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
33. Cri. I. A. No. 220-2021.doc
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2021
Sandeep @ Dampya Sanjay Gaud .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr. Rohan A. Waghmare, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad - Patil, APP, for the Respondent - State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 29.01.2021
P. C.
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks suspension of his
sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal
of the aforesaid Appeal.
3. The Applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in
Session Case No. 134/2012 @ Session Case No. 604/2014 has been
convicted and sentenced as under :-
1 of 4
33. Cri. I. A. No. 220-2021.doc
For the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further S. I. for three months;
For the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer for R. I. for two years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further S. I. for three months;
For the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer R. I. for three years and to pay fine of
Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer further S. I. for four months;
For the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further S. I. for three months;
For the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms
Act and under Section 37(1)(a)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, to
suffer S. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to
suffer further S. I. for three months.
All the aforesaid sentences are directed to run concurrently.
4. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was on bail pending
2 of 4
33. Cri. I. A. No. 220-2021.doc
trial and even post conviction, his sentence was suspended to enable the
Applicant to prefer an Appeal. The Appeal has been admitted by a
separate order passed today in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal. The
sentence imposed is a short term sentence. Considering the fact, that the
Appeal is not likely to be heard in the immediate near future and the fact
that the Applicant was on bail pending the trial and has not abused or
misused the conditions of bail, the Applicant's sentence is suspended
and he is enlarged on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of his
Appeal on the following terms & conditions:-
O R D E R
(i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three
months on the day / date specified by the trial Court, till his Appeal is
finally disposed of;
(iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his
current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence
or mobile details, if any, from time to time;
(iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before
the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court
and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an Application seeking
3 of 4
33. Cri. I. A. No. 220-2021.doc
cancellation of the Applicant's bail.
5. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
4 of 4
