Bombay High Court
Shaukatali Abdulsalem Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
14. IA-391-2022-in-APEAL-202-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2019
Shaukatali Abdulsalem Shaikh ...Applicant/
Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
....
Mr. Parth Kishor Sanghrajka, Advocate for the Applicant/
Appellant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail pending in Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2019.
2. The applicant has been convicted for offences
under Sections 392, 397 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(for short "IPC") and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for Seven years.
3. The first application preferred by the applicant
was rejected by order dated 28th February, 2019. Thereafter,
another application was preferred for suspension of sentence
which has been disposed of by order dated 20 th September,
2019, by permitting the applicant to withdraw the said
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 3
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2022.02.24
12:28:31
+0530
14. IA-391-2022-in-APEAL-202-2019.doc
application with liberty to move similar application after six
months if the appeal is not taken up for final hearing.
Thereafter, another application was preferred for similar
prayer which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to
prefer application for suspension of sentence after the
applicant completed half of the sentence awarded by the trial
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that,
in view of liberty granted to the applicant, he has preferred
this application for suspension of sentence. The applicant has
completed half of sentence imposed by the trial Court. The
appeal may not come up for hearing immediately.
5. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is
involved in another case which has resulted in conviction for
offence under Section 397 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Thus, the
applicant has been convicted in 2 cases. The sentences of
imprisonment may not be suspended.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant in rejoinder
submitted that, in the other case the applicant has preferred
appeal challenging the judgment of conviction. The appeal
has been admitted and sentence of imprisonment was
suspended and the applicant has been granted bail. It is
pertinent to note that from the tenor of order dated 21 st
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 3
14. IA-391-2022-in-APEAL-202-2019.doc
January, 2013, suspending sentence of imprisonment and
grant of bail in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2013 it appears that
it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the
applicant is convicted in another case. The applicant has
been convicted in the present case vide judgment and order
dated 17th January, 2019. It also appears that while the
previous order passed by this Court it was not brought to the
notice of this Court that the applicant is convicted in another
case.
7. In these circumstances, no case for suspension of
sentence is made out. However, considering the fact that the
applicant is in custody for a period of about three years and
six months, the hearing of appeal is expedited.
8. Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2019 be added to the
final hearing board in the week commencing from 14 th March,
2022.
9. Interim Application stands disposed off
accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3
