Dnyaneshwar Vasudeo Badgujar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 2920 Bom

                                    1/3                8 APEAL 337-23.doc


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 of 2023
                               WITH
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1103 OF 2023
                                IN
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2023


Dnyaneshwar Vasudeo Badgujar and anr           .. Appellants
                           Versus
The State of Maharashtra                       .. Respondent

                              ...
Mr. Ganesh Gole with Viraj Shelatkar i/b Ateet Shirodkar for the
appellants.
Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for the State.

                            CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 24th MARCH 2023 P.C:-

1 Appeal No.280/2023 filed by co-accused Sudhakar Badgujar came to be admitted by this Court on 14/3/2022. The present Appeal filed by Dnyaneshwar Accused no.1, and accused no.2 Rakesh Shirsat deserve a similar treatment. Hence, admit.

To be tagged with Appeal No.280/2023.

IA No.1103/2023.

2 By the present application, the applicants seek suspension of sentence imposed upon them in Sessions Judge,

Tilak

2/3 8 APEAL 337-23.doc

Nashik on 15/2/2023, by which they are convicted for th eoffence u/s.353 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 37(1)(3) r/w Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Pursuant to their conviction, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year for being convicted u/s.353 and to under RI for six months for conviction u/s.371 r/w Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

The learned counsel Mr.Gole would submit ath the applicants were on bail, pending the trial and they were also released on bail by the Sessions Court while the Appeal was being preferred.

3 The order by which Sudhakar Bhhikaji Badgujar was released on bail and his sentence came to be suspended, specifically record as under in para 5 and 6.

"5 Apart from the fact that the sentence imposed upon convicting the applicant is of the period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment, I could notice the inconsistency in the case of the prosecution, as what has been placed before the Magistrate when the offence punishable u/s.353 was triable by the Magistrate and the evidence of the witnesses before the Sessions Court, upon the case being transferred to Sessions Court, when the sentence imposed by Maharashtra Amendment for conviction u/s.353 has been enhanced to five years. Apart from this, prima facie, the finding recorded by Sessions Judge himself in paragraph no.26,

Tilak

3/3 8 APEAL 337-23.doc

will have to be construed in the light of the evidence, which appear to be contrary.

The admissions given by PW 2, the complainant before the Magistrate, run exactly contrary to his deposition, when he was examined before the Sessions Court as PW No.1. 6 In any case, for appreciating the arguments of perversity in the judgment, the Appeal deserve a hearing in detail. However, considering the minuscule nature of the punishment imposed, I deem it appropriate to grant the application by suspending the sentence by continuing the order passed by the Sessions Court, on which the applicant was released on bail.

The order shall continue to remain in operation till disposal of the Appeal".

4 In the wake of the above observation, which are equally applicable to the co-accused, since the Appeal deserve hearing in detail, I deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence and continue the order of releasing the applicants on bail by the Sessions Court, subject to the same terms and conditions, on they furnishing fresh bail bonds within a period of four weeks from today.

Interim Application stand disposed off.

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Tilak