1 905-Cri Apln-1760-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

905 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1760 OF 2022

IN APPEAL/405/2022

SUBHASH VITTHAL BHARATI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…

Advocate for Applicant : Mr Vinod Y. Bhide

APP for Respondent/State : Mr P.G. Borade

CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 13^th SEPTEMBER, 2022

PER COURT :

1.

Mr V.Y. Bhide, learned counsel for the applicant again seeks

time to remove office objections.

2.

In view of nature of prayer made in this application, it would be

appropriate to decide this application and in the meanwhile, Mr Bhide,

learned counsel for the applicant may remove office objections in a week

without seeking further adjournment.

3.

It is an application for stay to the order of conviction passed by

the learned Special Judge/additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in

Special Case No.14/2015 dated 19^th May, 2022.

2 905-Cri Apln-1760-2022

4.

Heard Mr Bhide, learned counsel for the appellant/original

accused and Mr P.G. Borade, learned APP for the State.

5.

Mr Bhide, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant invited my

attention to the copy of deposition of the original complainant and one

panch witness. He submitted that basic requirement of demand and

acceptance of bribe is not proved by the prosecution. Both the witnesses

have given candid admissions to that effect. As such, the prosecution has

failed to prove its entire case in view of the quality of evidence on record.

He submitted that the alleged bribe was in the name of some other two

persons. The applicant/accused never demanded such amount of bribe.

6.

Mr Bhide, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this

applicant/appellant was put under suspension. Though he is getting

provisional pension right now, but after conviction, he may lose his

pension. He, therefore, prayed for stay to the order of conviction passed

by the Special Court. Mr Bhide, learned counsel has placed his reliance on

the citation in case of S. Manik Reddy Vs. The State of Maharashtra

reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 3498 (Bom.), (Aurangabad Bench).

7.

Per contra, Mr P.G. Borade, learned APP for the State strongly

opposed to stay the order of conviction. He submitted that order of stay to

the conviction can be passed in a rarest of rare case and only when an

exceptional case is made out by the appellant/accused. It is not a routine

matter to grant stay to the order of conviction like suspension of sentence.

He submitted that the appellant/accused has not made out an exceptional

case to stay the conviction. He, therefore, strongly opposed to grant the

3 905-Cri Apln-1760-2022

prayer. In support of submissions, Mr P.G. Borade, learned APP for the

State has placed his reliance on the following stock of citations :-

(i) Babanrao Shankar Gholap Vs. The State of Maharashtra –

Criminal Application No.1039 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal

No.261 of 2014 (Paragraph Nos. 23, 24, 25, 36, 43 and 47);

(ii) K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh, 2001 AIR (SC) 3320:

2001 AIR (SCW) 3339, (Para Nos. 09, 10, 11,12 and 15);

(iii)

Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1515 of

2014 (SC);

(iv) Union of India Vs. Atar Singh, 2001 (10) JT 212 :: 2003 (10)

Scale 1010 :: 2003 (12) SCC 434;

(v)

State of Maharashtra Vs Gajanan, 2004 AIR (SC) 1188 ::

2004 (2) Bpm. C.R. (Cri.) 503 :: 2004 Cri.L.J.119.

8.

I have considered the submissions of Mr Bhide, learned

counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr P.G. Borade, learned APP for

the State. I have also perused the deposition relied upon by Mr Bhide,

learned counsel for the appellant, more particularly, the copy of deposition

of original complainant and