Puranshankar Rajnarayan Mishra v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2477 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2023 Puranshankar Rajnarayan Mishra ...Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Sandesh More, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State. by ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK Date:

2023.10.25 10:47:35 +0530

CORAM

: NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 23rd OCTOBER 2023 ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK PC.

:

1.

The applicant is convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC/NIA/POTA, Greater Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.07 of 2015, under Sections 120-B, 387 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and sentence to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay total fne of Rs.15,05,000/- is imposed on the applicant.

2.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that sentence imposed on the applicant is short term. He further submits that exorbitant fne amount is imposed on the applicant and applicant is not in a position to deposit the fne .... 1

amount. He relies on the decision of this Court (Coram : Prakash D. Naik, J.) in Criminal Application No.1602 of 2018 and connected matters in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2018 wherein the sentence of payment of fne of Rs.5,00,000/- was relaxed. He further submits that, there is non-compliance of Rule 15(3)(b), it is held to be mandatory by Apex Court in the case of Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2003) ALL MR (Cri) 164 (S.C.). He also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 4633 of 2021 wherein considering the fact that convicts has undergone 8 years of actual sentence and it was held that bail would be the rule. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 8647 of 2021) wherein out of ten years sentence, convicts has undergone eight years and fve days of imprisonment and therefore, bail was granted. His suspension of sentence was suspended.

3.

Learned APP on the other hand strenuously opposed prayer stating that applicant is convicted under MCOC Act and therefore, is not entitled for bail. He stated that, bail may be heard fnally.

4.

Considering the fact that applicant has undergone .... 2

substantive sentence of eight years and eight months. Appeal is already admitted. Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. Case is made out by applicant for suspension of sentence. In the said order in similar facts, this Court relaxed the sentence of payment of fne amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by directing therein to pay fne of Rs.50,000/- on each count. In the aforestated reasons, application deserves to be allowed. In the result, following order:- (i) Interim Application No.2477 of 2022 is allowed; (ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants vide judgment and order dated 31st May 2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge under MCOC/NIA/POTA, Greater Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No.07 of 2015 is suspended during the pendency of Appeal.

(iii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

(iv) Sentence of payment of fne of Rs. 5 lakhs on each conviction under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act is relaxed and the applicant is directed to deposit fne of .... 3

Rs.50,000/- on each count within a period of eight weeks from the date of his release.

(v) It is clarifed that the relaxation for payment of fne is granted pending appeal and it is subject to the decision in the appeal challenging order of conviction.

(vi) Applicant shall pay fne of Rs. 5,000/- for conviction under Sections 120-B, 387 of the IPC immediately before his release on bail.

(vii) Applicant shall attend concerned Police Station once in a month on frst Sunday until further orders.

(viii) Applicant shall furnish his present address and cellphone number with the Investigating Offcer. (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) .... 4