Bombay High Court
Raghunath Dattu Phad And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
955-appln-403-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
955 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2021
IN APEAL/73/2021
1. Raghunath s/o Dattu Phad
2. Satyabhama w/o Dattu Phad ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
..........
Mr. G. L. Kedar, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M. M. Nerlekar, APP for the respondent - State.
.........
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 18th March, 2021
ORDER :-
. Present application has been filed by original accused Nos.1 and 2
for suspending the sentence imposed upon them by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No.40 of 2016 dated
28.01.2021. They have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 363 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months. Further, they have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay
(1)
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2021 21:25:35 :::
955-appln-403-2021.odt
fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two months. Further, applicant No.1 has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. L. Kedar for the applicant and
learned APP Mr. M. M. Nerlekar for the respondent-State.
3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of applicants that the
applicants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of an appeal inter alia
on numerous grounds as set out in the appeal itself and the applicants
are having every hope of success therein. It is further submitted that the
applicants were on bail amid the trial and, there was no complaint
against the applicants during the course of trial. The learned Advocate
further argued that the sentence imposed upon applicants by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge is a short-term sentence. The learned
Advocate further submits that the appeal involves other legal and
technical points/issues, which the applicants/appellants intend to
agitate and address them at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
Consequently, the applicants pray for enlarging them on bail by
(2)
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2021 21:25:35 :::
955-appln-403-2021.odt
suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit
and proper.
4. Per contra, learned APP strongly resisted the application and
supported the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
while convicting and imposing the sentence against the applicants and it
is stated that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable
doubt.
5. At the outset, the points which are in favour of the applicants are
that there were on bail throughout the trial and they have not misused
the liberty granted to them. As it appears from the impugned judgment
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, particularly the sentence, that
has been imposed against the applicants for the offence, in question, is a
short term sentence, in view of the decision in the case of Kiran Kumar
Vs. State of M.P., [(2001) 9 SCC 211], a benefit will have to be given to
the applicants-appellants when they have demonstrated that the
material and significant points raised by them in the appeal are required
to be pondered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In this 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, the following order :-
(3)
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2021 21:25:35 :::
955-appln-403-2021.odt
ORDER
1. The Criminal Application stands allowed.
2. The substantive sentence, imposed upon the applicants by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Special Case
No.40 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2021, is
hereby suspended till hearing and final disposal of the appeal.
3. The applicants be released on P. R. Bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) with two sureties of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees
fifteen thousand) each.
4. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
5. 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 paper/s and,
thereafter, the Trial Judge to fix dates for the subsequent
appearances.
6. 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.
7. Bail before the Trial Court.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
scm
