Bombay High Court
Pravinkumar Champalal Hiran vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 January, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 10-ia-4536-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4536 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 22421 OF 2022
Pravinkumar Champalal Hiran ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Jigar Agarwal a/w. Amrish R. Salunke for Appellant.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 30 JANUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence of the
Applicant and for releasing him on bail during pendency of his
Appeal. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, vide her Judgment
and order dated 24/08/2022, passed in Sessions Case No.564 of
2019. The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable U/s.353 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer S.I.
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
Digitally
signed by
payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 15 days. The Applicant was
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.01.31
10:45:16
+0530
Gokhale
2 of 4 10-ia-4536-22
acquitted from commission of offences punishable under sections
504 and 506(1) of the I.P.C.
2. Heard Shri. Jigar Agarwal, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Smt. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
witnesses in this case are all the police officers who were present
in the police station; who were holding grudge against the
applicant. The other two witnesses are the persons against whom
the applicant had gone to the police station to lodge his complaint.
He submitted that the allegations against the applicant are false.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was on bail
during trial and even after his conviction he is granted bail
U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
4. Learned APP opposed this application. However, she
conceded that the sentence is short.
5. I have considered these submissions and I have also
perused the evidence of PW-2. He has described the incident. He
was directed to record the statement of the applicant because the
3 of 4 10-ia-4536-22
applicant wanted to lodge F.I.R. against one Bhurad. While PW-2
was recording the statement, said Bhurad came to the police
station and produced the CCTV footage showing his innocence.
There was a quarrel between the applicant and Bhurad. PW-2 tried
to intervene. It is alleged that the applicant caught PW-2's collar
and abused him. He also threatened the police officers that he
would take steps so that those police officers would be suspended.
6. The applicant is already acquitted from the allegation of
commission of offence punishable under sections 504 and 506(1)
of the I.P.C. The incident appears to have taken place in the heat of
anger. The points raised by learned counsel for the applicant will
have to be considered at the final hearing stage. The applicant was
on bail during trial. The sentence is short. The appeal is not likely
to be decided within that period. The incident is old. It had taken
place in December 2013. More than nine years have passed.
Considering all these aspects, the applicant can be granted bail
during pendency of his appeal.
7. Hence, the following order:
4 of 4 10-ia-4536-22
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal (ST) No.22421 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.)
