Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O. Vitthal Suryawanshi And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2023
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2023:BHC-AUG:26823-DB
CriAppln-3676-2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3676 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2019
Sachin s/o Vitthal Suryawanshi
Age 42 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
r/o Kerul, Taluka Ashti,
District Beed. ... Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Ashti, Police Station, Beed,
Taluka Ashti, District Beed.
2. Pushpa wd/o Balu @ Ravindra Khakal
Age 40 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Khakalwadi, Taluka Ashti,
District Beed. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Rajendra G. Hange, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATED : 18.12.2023
ORDER [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] :
1. By invoking Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[Cr.P.C.], prayers are raised for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail during pendency of appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 344 of
2019.
CriAppln-3676-2023
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant pointed out that
appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction passed on
19.03.2019. He would further submit that the applicant is lodged in
prison since 15.10.2011 i.e. since more than 12 years and according
to him, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonadhar v.
The State of Chhattisgarh ; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788, present applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail, he having completed more than 10
years incarceration. That, whenever he was given benefit of parole, he
has reported back in time and there is no breach at any point of time.
His liberty whenever granted, was never misused. However, as now
he is behind bars for more than 10 years, he be set at liberty on
appropriate conditions.
3. Above application is strongly opposed by learned APP as well as
learned counsel for respondent no.2 by pointing out that applicant
has misused the liberty and has not reported back to the prison and
therefore, he has been charged for commission of offence punishable
under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. That, if he is set at
liberty now, again he is likely to misuse the liberty and may not make
himself available. Hence, application is sought to be rejected.
CriAppln-3676-2023
4. Heard learned counsel for respective sides.
5. After considering the submissions of respective sides, there is
no dispute that applicant, a convict, is in prison since 15.10.2011.
Learned counsel is seeking reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh (supra). On
going through the same, it is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
above case has held, as regards to post conviction bail, that all
persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and when appeal is
not in proximity of hearing, with no extenuating circumstances should
be enlarged on bail. Therefore, there is a clear rider that only when it
is shown that there are no prospects of appeal being taken up for
hearing, and there is further rider that there should not be any
extenuating circumstances, in only such circumstances, prisoner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Hear, appellant is charged with offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. Learned APP has brought to
our notice that the applicant has misused the liberty and was
consequently required to be booked for commission of offence
punishable under Section 224 of IPC. Such crucial aspect itself
CriAppln-3676-2023
disentitles relief as he is shown to have a propensity to misuse the
liberty. Precisely for above reasons, we refuse the relief prayed. The
application is rejected.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
vre
