1IA.3005.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3005 OF 2021

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1010 OF 2021

Vrushabh Pratap Chotaliya

… Applicant/Appellant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

-------------------

Mr. Prathamesh Gaikwad I.by Mr. Edgar K. Braganza advocate for

applicant.

Mr. S.V. Gavand-APP for the State.

---------------------

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED :MARCH 21, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 2021 preferred

by the applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 24^th March

2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge

under MCOC/NIA/POTA Act, Greater Mumbai.

2.

Applicant (accused no.2) has been convicted for the

offence under section 392 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment of six years and fine of Rs. 3000/-. He is also convicted

for the offence under section 365 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.

2000/-. He is further convicted for the offence under section 506(2)

varsha

1 of 5

VARSHA

DEEPAK

GAIKWAD

Digitally

signed by

VARSHA

DEEPAK

GAIKWAD

Date:

2022.03.24

14:35:02

+0530

1IA.3005.2021.doc

read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment of three years and file of Rs. 1000/-. The applicant is

also convicted for the offence under section 3(1) (ii) of MCOC Act and

sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 5 lakh.

He is also convicted for the offence under section 3(4) of MCOC Act

and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs. 5

lakh.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 05/05/2017 at about

2.30a.m. the first informant was driving his Taxi’

s and was in search of

passengers. Three accused occupied his Taxi to go to Mulund. On the

way, the accused instructed him to go to Bhandup. After, reaching

Bhandup, the informant was taken towards Mumbai. While returning

towards Mumbai by Eastern Free Way one of the accused from rear

seat pointed knife on the neck of informant and instructed him to take

Taxi to the side of road. The informant was made to sit on the rear

seat. Accused occupied driver’

s seat. One of the accused demanded

money from informant. Informant gave amount of Rs.8,800/- from his

pocket to the accused. The accused got down from Taxi and fled away

from the spot. The F.I.R. was registered. MCOC Act provisions invoked.

4.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the

applicant has not played any role in the crime. There is no evidence to

convict for the offence under section 392, 365, 506 (2) of Indian Penal

Code. The applicant is in custody for 5 years. The applicant is not in a

position to deposit the fine amount as directed by the Court. He has no

capacity to arrange the fine amount. The appeal may not come up for

hearing within short period of time. The appeal would become

varsha

2 of 5

1IA.3005.2021.doc

infructuous. Those specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

5.

Learned APP submitted that the applicant has been

convicted for various offences. The provisions of MCOC have evicted

against him. The applicant is form of crime headed by the co-accused.

There are 44 other cases were registered against the applicant.

6.

The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was one of

the accused with the company of other accused. The case of the

prosecution is that the accused no.1 pointed knife on the neck of

informant and made him sick. It is pertinent to note that maximum

sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is 6 years. The

applicant was in custody for a period of 6 years. The appeal may be

come up for hearing within short period of time.

7.

Considering the factual aspects, the sentence of

imprisonment can be suspended. It also appears that the applicant is

not in a position to deposit the fine amount on account of the f