Allowed

Sagar Kanhu Khandale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jan 2024IA/605/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants convicted under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC sought suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of their criminal appeal, relying on long incarceration of over nine years and an Apex Court decision; the High Court allowed the application and enlarged them on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants' sentences suspended; enlarged on bail on PR bond of Rs.20,000 each with one solvent surety, subject to reporting and address-disclosure conditions.

Sagar Kanhu Khandale and Anr. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.605 OF 2023 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2022

¶5

1)Sagar Kanhu Khandale; and
2)Satish Dattatraya Bathe... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶6

 …..
Mr.Dilip Kamath a/w. Ms.Asha Joshi and Ms.Aadnya Bhandari,
Advocate for the Applicants.

¶7

Mrs.P.P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent – State.

¶8

 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 5thJANUARY 2024

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER

¶13

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2024.01.05 18:32:03 +0530

¶14

2By this Interim Application, the Applicants seek
suspension of their sentence and enlargement on bail pending the

¶15

hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal.

1/6

Rajeshri Aher

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

3The Applicants vide Judgment and order dated 13
March 2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune in Atrocity Special Case No.39 of 2014 have been convicted
alongwith other co – accused as under:

¶20

for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each;

¶21

for the offence punishable under Section 364 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each;

¶22

for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous

2/6

Rajeshri Aher

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of

¶27

Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for three months each;

¶28

All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶29

The applicants were, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) a/w. 3(2) (v) of 3(1)(x) r/w. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 37(1)135 of Bombay Police Act

¶30

4Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks suspension
of Applicants’ sentence and enlargement on bail, essentially on

¶31

the ground of, long incarceration of the Applicant i.e. 9 years and

¶32

10 months in custody without remission and 10 years and 11
months, with remission. Learned counsel relied on the Judgment

3/6

Rajeshri Aher

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

of the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2022 [SLP (Cri.)
No.4633/2021], in support of their submission.

¶37

5Learned APP does not dispute the fact, that the
Applicants are in custody for more than 9 years. She, however,
states that there are two witnesses in the case who have last seen
the Applicants with the deceased.

¶38

6Perused the papers. Admittedly, the prosecution case
rests on the circumstantial evidence. We have vide order dated 22
June 2022, passed in Interim Application Nos.2167 of 2021 and
2200 of 2021 suspended the sentence of the co–accused i.e.
Applicants therein having regard their role i.e. on merits. As far
as the Applicants are concerned, it is not in dispute that the
Applicants without remission are in custody for 9 years and 10
months without remission, and, 10 years and 11 months with
remission, and, are presently kept in open prison. The Appeal is

4/6

Rajeshri Aher

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

of the year 2022. We have Appeals in which accused are in
custody from the year 2014 and, as such, it is not possible for us
to take the aforesaid Appeal for final disposal out of turn. Even
otherwise, there are no extenuating circumstances to deny the
Applicants’ bail, having regard to the facts of this case, as are
required to be considered. Thus, having regard to the decision of
the Apex Court decision in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (Supra), there is no impediment in allowing the
application.

¶43

7Considering the aforesaid, the Application is allowed
and the Applicants’ sentences are suspended and they are
enlarged on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of their
Appeal on the following terms and conditions.

¶44

:: O R D E R ::

¶45

(i) The Applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, with one solvent surety in the like amount by each of them;

5/6

Rajeshri Aher

8 ia 605 of 2023.doc

(ii)The Applicants shall report to the trial Court, once in three months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till their appeal is finally disposed of;

¶50

(iii)The Applicants shall keep the trial Court informed of their current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶51

(iv)If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before

¶52

the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶53

7 The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶54

8 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶55

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶56

6/6

¶57

Rajeshri Aher

Sagar Kanhu Khandale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Kanhu Khandale and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Ahmed Mujaffar Hasan Vs State of Maharashtra

Jagannath Prasad Rajaram Shoke and Ors. Vs Governor/Lt Governor Union Territories and Ors.

Jagannath Prasad Rajaram Shoke and Ors. Vs Governor/Lt Governor Union Territories and Ors.

Sameerkumar Prakash Awasare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ishan Ashok Fadake Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sameerkumar Prakash Awasare Vs the State of Maharashtra