Allowed¶16

Yogesh Prabhakarrao Munjewar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha

Bombay HC29 Jul 2025APPA/618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; Section 324; Sessions Case No. 101/2016; rigorous imprisonment three years; fine Rs.50,000/- deposited; P.R. Bond Rs. 25,000/- with one surety; Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2025 admitted; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.; APPA 618 of 2025; Yogesh s/o Prabhakarrao Munjewar Vs State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of execution of the sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 101/2016 till disposal of the appeal; appellant to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount; criminal application disposed of. ¶16

Yogesh Prabhakarrao Munjewar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant (convicted under Section 324, rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in Sessions Case No. 101/2016) should be suspended and the appellant released on bail pending disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2025.

¶9

Court's answer

The application deserves to be allowed because, on perusal of the impugned judgment, the appeal raises many arguable points and the punishment imposed is of a limited period.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 101/2016 is suspended till disposal of the appeal, and the appellant is to be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Criminal Application (APPA) No. 618 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2025 (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.; decided 29/07/2025): The applicant/appellant, convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.50,000/- (already deposited) in Sessions Case No. 101/2016, sought suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal. Holding that the punishment imposed was of a limited period and that the appeal raised many arguable points, the Court allowed the application, suspended execution of the sentence till disposal of the appeal, and directed release on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2025 was admitted; the learned APP waived service of notice for respondent/State; record and proceedings were called for and the appeal was directed to be listed after preparation of the paper-book.

¶1

4appa618.2025.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 618 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2025

¶5

Yogesh s/o Prabhakarrao Munjewar Vs State of Maharashtra

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. Utkarsh Mehta, counsel h/f Mr. M.V. Rai, counsel for applicant/appellant. Mr. Anant Ghogare, APP for respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 29/07/2025.

¶9

By this application, the appellant is seeking suspension of sentence and releasing the appellant on bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, which he has already deposited. He submitted that the maximum punishment imposed is of three years, which is a limited period punishment. The appeal would take its own time for its final disposal. In the meantime, if the sentence is executed, the appeal would become infructuous. He also pointed out from the impugned judgment that he has many arguable points in the present appeal.

¶11

Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that the appeal itself is devoid of merits.

¶12

rkn

¶13

2 4appa618.2025.odt

¶14

On perusal of the impugned judgment, from which the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that he has many arguable points. Moreover, the punishment imposed is of a limited period. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶15

a] The criminal application is allowed.

¶16

b] The execution of the sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 101/2016 is hereby suspended till disposal of the appeal.

¶17

c] The appellant shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount.

¶18

The criminal application is disposed of.

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2025

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Admit.

¶22

Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent/State.

¶23

Call for record and proceedings.

¶24

The appeal be listed before this Court after preparation of the paper-book.

¶25

[ URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶26

rkn

Yogesh Prabhakarrao Munjewar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Prabhakarrao Munjewar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramankumar S/O Bhagwandas Malik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr House Officer, P.S. Sitabardi, Dist. Nagpur

Mohammad Zishan Mohammad Faruque Kothurkara Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Ram Nagar, Gondia, Dist. Gondia and Anr.

Tirupatrao S/O Musalaih Bolla vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Mauda, Ps, Nagpur (Rural), Dist. Napur

Sanjay @ Sanju Raju Chetti vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer Ps Bhadrawati Dist. Chandrapur

Bebi Karnuji Meshram vs State of Mahrashtra Thr Its P.I. Gadge Nagar and Anr.

Sahadab S/O Jabbar Sheikh vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Hingna, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur