The High Court granted bail to the applicant during the pendency of his criminal appeal. The court noted the imposed sentence was short and the applicant had not misused bail previously.
Applicant directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal recognizance bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
03-IA-255-23-IN-APEAL-58-23.odt
1 / 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.58 OF 2023
Santosh Baban Bagal.... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade i/b. Mr. Mahesh Zanwar, Advocate for Applicant.Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent.CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 23rd JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
the Appeal preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was
convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge vide
his Judgment and Order dated 22/11/2012 passed in Sessions
Case No.67/2016.
Digitally signed byMANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2023.01.24 15:03:26 +0530
(i) The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine ofNesarikar
2 / 4 03-IA-255-23-IN-APEAL-58-23.odt
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
suffer simple imprisonment of one month.
(ii) He was convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.(iii) All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.(iv) He was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 37 r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.(v) The charge was also framed u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the Applicant. But he was not convicted for that offence.(vi) His brother, who was the co-accused, was acquitted from all the charges.2. Heard Mr. Shreyas P. Barsawade, learned counsel for
the Applicant and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
03-IA-255-23-IN-APEAL-58-23.odt
3 / 4
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
sentence imposed on the Applicant is short. The Applicant was
on bail during trial and he has not misused the same. Even after
his conviction he was granted bail u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. He
submitted that on merits he has a good case. He is implicated
falsely because of the previous enmity. The Medical Officer has
mentioned that the injury was simple. The recovery of the sword
is doubtful. It was not properly sealed.
4. Learned APP opposed this application on merits. But
she conceded that the sentence is short.
5. I have considered these submissions. He has also
attributed a specific role to the Applicant’s co-accused Appasaheb
Bagal. He was acquitted. On the same evidence the Applicant is
convicted who is attributed a serious role. All this will have to be
considered at the final hearing stage. The injury was on vital
part and suturing was required. This will also have to be taken
4 / 4 03-IA-255-23-IN-APEAL-58-23.odt
into consideration at the final hearing stage. However, the
sentence imposed is short. The Applicant was on bail during
trial. There are no allegations of misuse of that liberty. Even
after his conviction he was granted bail for a limited period.
6. Considering this background, the Applicant can be granted bail during pendency of his Appeal.
7. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
(i)During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2023, the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing
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 stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal.
Santosh Baban Bagal
State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court