Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Paritosh Tarapad Poddar And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8448 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8448 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 August, 2022

Bombay High Court
Paritosh Tarapad Poddar And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. ... on 26 August, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
                                    1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2022
1.        Paritosh Tarapad Poddar, aged 34 years,
          occ. Tailoring, R/o M.V. 16, Tah. & Distt.
          Malkangiri, (Orissa State)

2.        Haridas Harivila Biswas, aged 29 years,
          Occ. Education, R/o M.V. 16, Tah. &
          Dist. Malkangiri, (Orissa State)
                                                       ... PETITIONER
                                VERSUS
          State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.,
          P.S. Gadchiroli, Tah. & Dist.
          Gadchiroli.

                                                   ... RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________
       Mrs. Maira Ateeb, Advocate for the petitioners.
       Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________

                         CORAM          :   VINAY JOSHI, J.
                         DATED.         :   26.08.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

            RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.


2. Heard finally by consent of both the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioners have been convicted by the Trial Court in

R.C.C. No.21 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 420,

468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

66(c) of the Information Technology Act. The Trial Court has imposed

separate punishment for each offence, out of which the maximum

sentence is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years

with certain amount of fine. The Trial Court directed that all

substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The total fine imposed

under different counts is of Rs.80,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of conviction,

the petitioners have filed Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2020 challenging

the order of conviction. In said appeal the petitioners have filed an

application seeking suspension of execution of sentence in terms of

Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however the

Appellate Court has declined to suspend the execution of substantive

sentence.

5. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioners have

applied to this Court. It is the petitioners' contention that they have

good case on merit. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in

proper perspective, which resulted into passing an order of conviction.

Besides that, it has been argued that both petitioners are under trial

prisoners and they are in jail from 30.08.2018 and 26.02.2018

respectively, meaning thereby they have already suffered punishment

more than one and half of the term, which has been imposed.

6. The State resisted the petition by contending that both

petitioners are resident of other State and if they are release on bail,

there are high chances of abscondance and they may not be available

for the hearing of the appeal.

7. Perused the impugned judgment and the nature of evidence

laid by the prosecution. The petitioners have already deposited entire

fine amount of which photocopy of receipts have been tendered. The

maximum sentence of imprisonment is for six years. The calculation

shows that the petitioners are under trial prisoners and up-till now,

they are in jail for the period of four years and six months. To my mind,

this itself is a sufficient reason for suspension, because if ultimately the

petitioner succeeds in appeal, then irreversible position may occur. As

regards to the objection that the petitioners are hailing from State of

Orissa, the care can be taken by imposing certain conditions.

8. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The Impugned

order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set

aside. Execution of substantive sentence stands suspended till the final

disposal of the appeal on petitioners' furnishing solvent surety to the

tune of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

9. The Trial Court shall issue the release warrant only after

ensuring that the entire fine amount, has been deposited.

10. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Trupti

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

30.08.2022 16:46

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter