Shabbir Abdul Sattar Maniar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4392 Bom

                                       32-IA952-22INREVN127-22.DOC

                                                             Santosh
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 952 OF 2022
                            IN
       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 OF 2022

Shabbir Abdul Sattar Maniar & ors.                    ...Applicants
                    Versus
The State of Maharashtra                             ...Respondent

Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, a/w Rajdeep Gude and Rohit
      Mahadik, i/b Khandeparkar & Asso., for the Applicants.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State.


                          CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                          DATED :      26th APRIL, 2022
PC:-

1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the

learned APP for the State.

2.     This application is preferred for suspension of sentence

and to enlarge the applicants on bail during the pendency of the

revision application.

3.     The   applicants   were    prosecuted   for    the   offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 332, 353 read with 149 of

the India Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and under Section 3(2)(e) of

the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 ("the Act,

1984"), in Regular Criminal Case No.53 of 2013. By a judgment

and order dated 26th August, 2015 passed by the learned
                                 1/3
                                          32-IA952-22INREVN127-22.DOC

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindhudurg, the applicants

were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 332 of

the IPC. However, the applicants came to be convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 353 and 149 of the

IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act, 1984 and sentenced to suffer

rigorous   imprisonment      for   two   months    for   the   offence

punishable under Section 143, three months for the offence

punishable under Section 147, six months for the offence

punishable under Section 353 of IPC and also pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 3(2)

(e) of the Act, 1984, the applicants were sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- each. The applicants preferred appeal, being Appeal

No.74 of 2015. By a judgment and order dated 22 nd February,

2022, the learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to dismiss the

appeal and affirm the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

4.   Being aggrieved, the applicants are in revision.

5.   Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant

submits that the applicants have surrendered to their bail. The

learned Counsel further submits that during the pendecy of the

trial and appeal the applicants were on bail. The applicants

have roots in the society.


                                   2/3
                                           32-IA952-22INREVN127-22.DOC

6.   The sentence imposed upon the applicants is short one. It

is very unlikely that the revision application can be heard and

finally disposed before the substantive sentence gets over.

7.   Arguable       questions    are   also   raised in   the revision

application. It would, therefore, be expedient in the interest of

justice to suspend the sentence till the hearing and final

disposal of this revision application.

8.   Hence, the following order:

                              :ORDER:

(i) The application stands allowed.

(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate in RCC No.53 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015, stands suspended till the hearing and disposal of this revision application.

(iii) The applicants be released on bail on furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(iv) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before this Court.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

order.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]