Bombay High Court
Amol Gulab Awale And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2023:BHC-AS:9582
1/3 20.2 IA-1009-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1009 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 OF 2023
Amol Gulab Awale & Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Rishi Bhuta i/b Mr.Parth Pandey and Mr.K.R.Shah for the
Applicants.
Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, A.P.P. for the State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 28th MARCH, 2023
P.C:-
1. By the present application, the two Applicants, one of
whom being a senior citizen and a practicing Advocate seek
suspension of sentence and their release on bail, pending the
Appeal.
Applicant No.1 stand convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 392 of IPC and have been
directed to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fne of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 15 days respectively.
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As
far as Applicant No.2 is concerned, he is convicted for the
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2023 20:01:57 :::
2/3 20.2 IA-1009-23.odt
offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced to
s uffer R.I. for three months and to pay fne of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to suffer S.I. for 15 days.
2. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the
Applicants and the learned A.P.P., I have perused the
impugned judgment.
The learned counsel for the Applicants would
vehemently argue that a specifc role came to be attributed to
accused No.1-Abhijeet Merude, who is also a practicing
Advocate and the impugned judgment has acquitted him of the
charges, by specifcally recording that the allegation levelled
against him under Section 353 of IPC is not proved, as there is
no evidence brought on record that he actually used the
criminal force.
The learned counsel would submit that the role
attributed to the two Applicant, who came to the aid of accused
No.1-Abhijeet Merude is obviously lesser than the one
attributed to him, as the incident began with an altercation
with PW 1 in his offce and he is accused of creating disruption
in his working. As far as the two Applicants are concerned,
they are roped in the second and third incident, which are
alleged to have taken place thereafter, when accused No.1-
Abhijeet Merude was aggrieved with alleged wrong order
passed by PW 1 and after he left the offce. As far as Applicant
No.2 is concerned, it is alleged that he threatened to cancel the
order and shouted upon him and it is alleged that Applicant
No.1 abused and had thrown his mobile towards him.
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2023 20:01:57 :::
3/3 20.2 IA-1009-23.odt
3. My attention is invited to the evidence that is placed
before the Court and this defnitely deserve consideration at
the time, when the Appeal is heard. Considering the
minuscule nature of the sentence imposed on the Applicants,
on being convicted and the fact that the Applicants were on
bail and they have not misused their liberty, I deem it
appropriate to grant the application. Hence, the following
order.
: ORDER :
1. The application is allowed.
2. The sentence imposed on the Applicants under the
impugned judgment dated 23/01/2023 in Sessions Case
No.161 of 2019, is hereby suspended.
3. The Applicants are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each, with one or
more sureties in the like amount.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
