Bombay High Court
Archana Laxman Thorve vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:32515
:1: 19-I-ia-4686-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4686 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2023
Archana Laxman Thorve .....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
-----
Mr. Rajendra Kambale, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12th AUGUST, 2024
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending Appeal.
The Applicant was the original accused before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.962/2019. The
learned Judge, vide his judgment and order dated
4.10.2023, convicted the Applicant for commission of the
offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced
her to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-
and in default to suffer SI for one month.
1 of 3
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:29:21 :::
:2: 19-I-ia-4686-23.odt
2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kambale, learned counsel
for the Applicant and Ms. Ranjana Humane, learned APP for
the Respondent-State.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.3.2012, the
first informant (PW-1), who was the Gramsevak, went to the
house of the Applicant to collect the taxes. The Applicant
threw the notice back at the informant and slapped her. On
this basis, the FIR is lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there is no other independent witnesses examined by the
prosecution. The incident had taken place on the road and
only other witness supporting the informant is PW-2
Kumbhar. However, the prosecution has failed to examine
the other villagers who could have given independent
evidence in this case. He submitted that the sentence
imposed on the Applicant is only for one year. The Appeal is
not likely to be decided within that period. The incident is
old. More than 12 years have passed from the alleged
incident. Learned counsel submits that even after her
conviction, the trial Court had granted bail to the Applicant
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:29:21 :::
:3: 19-I-ia-4686-23.odt
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for a limited period. The
Applicant has no other criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposed these submissions.
According to her, the offence is serious.
6. I have considered these submissions. The points
raised by the Applicant will have to be decided at the final
hearing stage. The maximum sentence imposed on the
Applicant is only one year. The Appeal is not likely to be
decided within that period. The Applicant is a lady.
Therefore, in these circumstances I am inclined to grant bail
to the present Applicant pending her Appeal.
7. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal
No.1405/2023, the Applicant is directed to be released on
bail on her executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
DESHMANE
Date: 2024.08.14 3 of 3
