1. Rule.
Learned APP Mr. Jani waives service of Rule on behalf of the State.
2. Present application is filed under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sahera in Criminal Case No.291 of 2011, which has been confirmed in Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchamahals at Godhra.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sahera vide order dated 20.7.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.291 of 2011, ordered the applicant to suffer six months S.I. and fine of Rs.750/-, in default, to undergo further 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The applicant was also ordered to suffer two years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to under further 4 months S.I. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the applicant submitted that the applicant has already deposited fine before the concerned Court and the present applicant was bail and now he is in jail.
5. Heard learned APP Mr. Jani for the State. He strongly opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the fact that the Revision is arising from the short sentence imposed by the learned Judge and considering the pendency of large number of matters and the provisions under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that during the hearing of this Revision, the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a fresh bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top