Bombay High Court
Fakroddin Abdul Ajij Jamadar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
10.Ia-3429-2021-in-Apeal-1066-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3429 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1066 OF 2021
Fakroddin Abdul Ajij Jamadar ...Applicant/
Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Mohd. Saifan Mulla, Advocate for the Applicant/
Appellant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. M. G. Gaikwad, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City,
Present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal preferred
by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated
12-11-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur
convicting the appellant for offence punishable under
Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted
that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from several
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
10.Ia-3429-2021-in-Apeal-1066-2021.doc
infirmities. There are no independent witness to support the
prosecution case. All the witnesses examined by the
prosecution are interested witnesses. The applicant was on
bail during the trial. He has not misused the facility of bail.
On the date of conviction the trial Court has suspended the
sentence of imprisonment to enable the applicant to prefer an
appeal before the Higher Court. The said order is in operation
till today.
3. Learned APP submitted that, specific role is
attributed to the applicant having assaulted the injured on
vital part with knife. The medical evidence shows that the
injury was grievous. The trial Court has awarded the lessor
sentence although the conviction is for offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC. The judgment of the trial Court
does not indicate any reasons for awarding only three years
imprisonment conviction for offence under Section 307 of
IPC. There is evidence of eye witnesses including the injured
witness which has been considered by the trial Court while
convicting the applicant.
4. The applicant has preferred an appeal challenging
the impugned judgment of conviction. The applicant has
urged several grounds challenging the judgment of
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
10.Ia-3429-2021-in-Apeal-1066-2021.doc
conviction. The applicant was on bail during the trial.
Sentence is of 3 years imprisonment. The trial Court has
suspended the sentence on the date of judgment of conviction
vide Section 389 of Cr.P.C. and the applicant has been
released on bail on his furnishing PR and SB in the sum of
Rs.50,000/-.
5. The sentence is of short term. The appeal would
not reach for hearing immediately. Considering the aforesaid
circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment can be
suspended.
6. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 3429 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.1066
of 2021, sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur vide Judgment and
Award dated 12-11-2021 in Sessions Case No.51 of 2019,
convicting the applicant for offence under Section 307 of
IPC is suspended and the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
10.Ia-3429-2021-in-Apeal-1066-2021.doc
iii. To enable the applicant to furnish surety bond as
stated above, the order passed by the Sessions Court
suspending the sentence shall continue for a period of
four weeks.
iv. Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
