Bombay High Court
Sakharam Chandusing Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 12-ia-1650-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1650 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2022
Sakharam Chandusing Pawar ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Shivprasad C. Kanojia for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 22 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2022 preferred by the applicant
challenging Judgment and order dated 05/05/2022 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, in Special Case (ACB)
No.2 of 2012. The applicant was the original Accused No.2 who
was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. Section 109 of the I.P.C.
and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.23
10:53:52
+0530
Gokhale
2 of 4 12-ia-1650-22
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one
month.
2. Heard Shri. Shivprasad Kanojia, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused No.1 Thote was
the Junior Engineer working with the Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. The complainant Vishal Jaiswal was
having license as Electrical contractor. He would get approximate
200 jobs monthly for providing electric meters. For that, he had to
prepare the quotations and to fill up the forms. The prosecution
case is that, for approval of the quotations, the accused No.1 used
to demand Rs.1000/- per quotation. On 12/09/2011, the
complainant lodged his complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau
because the accused No.1 had demanded Rs.60000/- for 60
quotations. The demand was negotiated to Rs.40000/-. A trap was
laid and the present applicant was found accepting that amount on
behalf of the accused No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there
3 of 4 12-ia-1650-22
is nothing on record to show any connection between the accused
No.1 and accused No.2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
prove any nexus of demand made by the accused No.1 through the
present applicant. He submitted that, he is falsely implicated. The
description of the trap was not correct. He submitted that the
applicant was on bail during trial and even after his conviction he
was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
5. Learned APP opposed this application on merits. He
submitted that the prosecution has proved the demand and
acceptance. However, he conceded that the sentence imposed is
short.
6. I have considered these submissions. The points raised
by learned counsel for the applicant will have to be decided at the
final hearing stage. However, the sentence imposed on the
applicant is short. He was on bail during trial. Even after his
conviction, he was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. Considering
all these aspects, the applicant can be granted bail during
pendency and final disposal of his appeal.
4 of 4 12-ia-1650-22
7. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.564 of 2022, the Applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond
in the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
