GOVIND MADHAV UPASE Vs. DATTATRAYA MADHAV HABBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application arises in the peculiar circumstances and that is how notice to respondent No.1 is not given for the purpose of disposal of this bail application.

(2.) THE learned JMFC, Pimpri convicted the applicant vide Order dated 10.2.2004 in Criminal Case No.4530 of 2002 and convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the applicant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation and ordered that in default of payment of compensation, the applicant should undergo rigorous imprisonment. THE appeal filed by the applicant before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune came to be dismissed by Order dated 8.2.2008. THE applicant came to be taken into custody on 8.2.2008 as is manifest in the impugned Order dated 8.2.2008 and since then the applicant is in custody. Today is 22.4.2008 i.e. the applicant has undergone detention for about two and half months i.e. he has practically served the substantive sentence. In my view, because of this development, if the applicant is not released on bail he will undergo imprisonment as provided by the Order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and thereby the revision application would become infructuous which is since been admitted.