Bombay High Court
Basappa Gurusiddhappa Mang vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:32784
1/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3072 OF 2024
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.145 OF 2024
Bassapa Gurusiddhapa Mang .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr. Samay Pawar i/b. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant was the original accused in Special
(MCOCA) Case No.16 of 2020 before the Special Judge,
Gadhinglaj. He was the accused No.4. The learned Judge vide
his Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2023 convicted the
Applicant and others. The Applicant was convicted and
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2024.08.16
sentenced as follows:
14:53:39
+0530
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:10 :::
2/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
(i) The Applicant was convicted for commission of
offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(ii) He was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act and was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years.
(iii) He was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 3(2) of MCOC Act and was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years.
(iv) He was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 3(4) of MCOC Act and was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:10 :::
3/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
(v) All the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Samay Pawar, learned counsel for the
Applicant,- Mr. Anand S. Patil, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 and Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, learned APP for the
State.
3. The Applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.145 of
2024 challenging the said Judgment and Order of conviction
and sentence. The Appeal was admitted. He preferred Interim
Application No.635 of 2024 in that Appeal. At that time nobody
had appeared for Respondent No.3 inspite of service. Learned
counsel Mr. Anand Patil appeared for Respondent No.2. Today I
have heard learned counsel for the Applicant, for Respondent
No.2 and learned APP. The present application is for
modification of one of the conditions mentioned in the order
dated 17/04/2024 passed by a coordinate bench (Coram :
Kishore C. Sant, J.) in Interim Application No.635 of 2024 in the
said Appeal. The Applicant was granted bail. It was observed
that the main consideration was that the Applicant had served
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:10 :::
4/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
almost the entire sentence and therefore the Court was inclined
to allow the application only on that consideration. However,
one of the conditions imposed was that the Applicant had to
deposit 50% of the total fine amount. On that condition he was
granted bail. The said order was passed on 17/04/2024. Even
after about four months, the Applicant could not avail of the
said bail order because it was beyond his capacity to deposit
50% of the fine amount which was to the tune of
Rs.15,05,000/-. Therefore, the present application is filed for
relaxation of that particular condition.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
inspite of his best efforts, he could not raise that amount. He is
in custody for about 7 years and therefore though he is granted
bail; that order could not be implemented because of the lack of
funds. He submitted that the Applicant is in a position to deposit
Rs.50,000/- only.
5. The learned APP and the learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 opposed these submissions. According to them,
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 07:56:10 :::
5/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
since that particular condition was imposed while granting bail,
it should be complied with. Learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2 added that it was public money that was lost and therefore
no leniency should be shown to him.
6. I have considered these submissions. The previous
order shows that the Applicant has almost completed the
substantive sentence and it is only the 'in default' sentence
which he has to undergo. He was already granted bail. In this
situation, the bail order had to be effective. Though it was held
that the Applicant was entitled for bail, he could not be released
on bail because he could not pay half the fine amount. In this
situation, since the Applicant has already completed the
substantive sentence, I am inclined to modify and relax that
particular condition.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The condition (d) in the order dated
17/04/2024 in Interim Application No.635 of
6/6 18-IA-3072-24-IN-635-24-IN-APEAL-145-24.odt
2024 in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2024 is
modified and the Applicant is permitted to
deposit Rs.50,000/- by way of part of his fine
amount, instead of 50% of the fine amount.
(ii) The rest of the conditions mentioned in the said
order shall remain as they are.
(iii) With these observations, the application is
disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
