Vaibhav @ Takalya Gopal Gavali vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1453 Bom

                                        1                           55-CrAn-640-23.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.640 OF 2023
                     IN REVN/40/2023 WITH REVN/40/2023

                     VAIBHAV @ TAKALYA GOPAL GAVALI
                                  VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                     ...
                    Advocate for Applicant : Mr. J. V. Patil
                APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
                                     ...

                                            CORAM :        S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                            DATE       : 13-02-2023

PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 09.03.2023.

3. The learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondent

No.1/State.

4. The applicant/original accused No.2 has been convicted for

the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 323 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Chopda, District Jalgaon, vide judgment and

order in R.C.C.No. 154 of 2017, dated 12.02.2018. In appeal, the

learned District Judge-2, Amalner, convicted the accused for the

punishable under Section 385 read with Section 34 only of the

Indian Penal Code. On the date of pronouncement of judgment

and order dated 30.01.2023, the learned District Judge-2, Amalner,

send the accused to jail. Since then, the accused is behind bar.

2 55-CrAn-640-23.odt

5. The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the

applicant has a good case on merit. The legal issue has been

involved in this case.

6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application contending that

the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge-2,

Amalner, is legal, proper and correct. The applicant/accused has

no any ground to raise in the revision. Hence, the sentence of

imprisonment may not be suspended.

7. Perused the impugned order. The applicant appears to have

good ground for arguments. Hence, the sentence imposed

deserve to be suspended. Hence, the following order:-

i)      The application is allowed.

ii)     The execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by

the learned District Judge-2, Amalner, in Criminal Appeal

No.6 of 2018, dated 30.01.2023, is suspended till the

conclusion of the revision application.

ii) The applicant be released on bail on executing P.B. and S.B.

of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

iii) Bail before the learned District Judge-2, Amalner.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

rrd