Bombay High Court
Devidas Piraji Bansode vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2022
Bench: S. G. Mehare
{1}
901 sr.no. sos.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1473/2022
IN REVISION/142/2022
DEVIDAS PIRAJI BANSODE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.
APP for Respondents: Mr. D.R. Kale, PP.
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 9TH MAY, 2022 (VACATION COURT)
ORAL ORDER:
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for
State.
2] Issue notice to respondent returnable on 13th June, 2022.
3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-
revision petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 A of IPC by the learned trial court. The appeal against the
said judgment of conviction was also dismissed by the learned Sessions
Judge. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no materiel
evidence on record to hold the revision petitioner guilty. He would also
submit that the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC is
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2022 08:54:48 :::
{2}
901 sr.no. sos.odt
punishable with maximum imprisonment of six months or with fine
which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. He also submitted that
the maximum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 304A
of IPC is two years or with fine or with both. The learned counsel for
revision petitioner also pointed out that he has a prima facie case to
consider the revision. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate the
evidence of PW-3. The revision petitioner was on bail throughout the trial
and also in appeal. He has not misused the liberty granted to him and
breached any condition of bail. He was regularly attending the trial as
well as appeal. The revision petitioner is permanent resident of
Ahmednagar. There are no chances of his abscondence.
4] The learned Government Pleader Shri Kale would submit
that there are concurrent findings against the revision petitioner. There
is prima facie evidence against the revision petitioner. He has no case to
seek suspension of sentence.
5] The Honourable Apex Court in the matter of "Preetam Pal
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another" in Criminal Appeal No. 520
of 2020 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2102 of 2019 has held in para 26
that Seection 389 provides that pending any appeal by convicted person,
the appellate court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order
that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against, be
suspended and also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail.
Of Course, in view of the mandate of Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. the
principles are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years
and/or in the case of bailable offences. In this case, of course, none of
the offences for which the Respondent No.2 has been convicted are
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2022 08:54:48 :::
{3}
901 sr.no. sos.odt
bailable. Moreover, the Respondent No.2 has, inter-alia, been given life
imprisonment for offence under Section 304B of the IPC and
imprisonment for five years for offence under Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
6] No doubt, the offence for which the revision petitioner is
convicted is punishable below 3 years. Hence, this application can be
considered at this stage. However, Chapter I Rule 5 of the Bombay High
Court Appellate Side Rules, empowers a Vacation Judge only to pass an
interim order. At this juncture, there is nothing on record to show that
the revision petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him by the trial
court or the First Appellate Court. He is now behind bars.
7] It is argued that the applicant/revision petitioner is sole
bread winner of his family and he is ready to abide by the conditions that
would be imposed against him.
8] This court finds that the discretion under section 389 of
Cr.P.C. may be exercised. However, no final order of suspension of
sentence can be passed in view of limited power of granting interim relief
during vacations. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
[a] The execution, implementation and effect of sentence
imposed against the applicant/revision petitioner by the courts below is
suspended till the next date.
[b] In view of suspension of sentence temporarily, the applicant
{4}
901 sr.no. sos.odt
be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
with one solvent surety in the like amount.
[c] Bail bonds be furnished before the appellate court.
[d] Stand over to 13th June, 2022.
[e] Hamdast allowed.
[S.G. MEHARE]
JUDGE.
grt/
