RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri MP Kale for revision applicant and learned APP Shri SW Mundhe for Respondent-State.

(2.) Perused the copies of evidence made available by the revision applicant.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the revision applicant that, both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and relied on the interested witnesses. There is a civil dispute pending between family of the informant as well as father of the revision applicant-accused and, therefore, false implication cannot be ruled out. No independent witness has been examined when the house of the informant is in busy locality. There are many arguable points, which this Court would be required to consider and, therefore, till the revision is heard, the sentence imposed upon the revision applicant may be suspended. He also submitted that the present revision applicant has not surrendered before the Trial Court. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Fazal Khalil Ahemad Shaikh Vs. Nandkishor Ramnivasji Agrawal and Anr. (Cri.Appln.No.2743/2019 in Cri.Revn.Appln.No. 323/2019, decided on 12th June, 2020), wherein it has been observed that, though the procedure is required to be followed by the first Appellate Court; yet the High Court cannot reject revision application on the ground that the accused has not surrendered. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the application and releasing the revision applicant on bail.