Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suspension of the substantive sentence imposed by order dated 16.03.2024 in Sessions Case No. 437 of 2007 till decision of the appeal; applicant enlarged on bail on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/appellant, sentenced by order dated 16.03.2024 in Sessions Case No. 437 of 2007 and awaiting hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2024, deserves to be enlarged on bail with suspension of his substantive sentence till decision of the appeal, on parity with co-accused Bapu @ Chandrakant B. Bhondave who was released on bail by order dated 24.10.2024.

Court's answer

Except for PW-3, none of the 11 examined witnesses claims to have seen the incident, and PW-3 does not name the present appellant as the assailant or as one who was present at the spot of the incident.

Ratio / Principle

Parity with co-accused Bapu @ Chandrakant B. Bhondave (already enlarged on bail) applies: the sentence imposed is for a fixed term, the appellant has undergone above two years behind bars, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in short time; hence the application deserves to be allowed.

Key takeaways

The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant by order dated 16.03.2024 in Sessions Case No. 437 of 2007 stands suspended till decision of the appeal.ratio¶35
The applicant is to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R. M. Joshi, J.), by order dated 15.12.2025, allowed Interim Application No. 2519 of 2024 filed by the appellant (Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav) in Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2024 against his conviction and substantive sentence dated 16.03.2024 in Sessions Case No. 437 of 2007. The Court suspended the substantive sentence till decision of the appeal and directed enlargement of the applicant on bail on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Grounds: (i) parity with co-accused Bapu @ Chandrakant B. Bhondave, who was released on bail by the same Court by order dated 24.10.2024 on a similar role; (ii) of the 11 trial witnesses only PW-3 claims to have seen the incident, and he does not name the appellant as the assailant or place him at the spot; (iii) the appellant had already undergone above two years in jail; (iv) the sentence was for a fixed term and the appeal was not likely to be heard in short time. The learned APP opposed the application citing the seriousness of the crime; the intervenor was unrepresented.

22-IA-2519-24.doc

S.S.Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2519 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2024

Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav … Appellant/ Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mr. Ishan Paradkar, Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, Mr. Samay Pawar and Mr. Priyesh More, Advocates for Appellant in Cri. Appeal 751/2024.

Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 571/2024.

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2025.12.17 KILAJE 14:27:13+0700

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 15^th DECEMBER, 2025.

P.C. :

None for the intervenor.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant /appellant and learned

APP.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that similarly this accused has been granted bail on 24.10.2024. It is his submission that except for one eye witness of the incident, there is no other evidence to indicate the exact occurrence of the incident in which injured sustained injuries.

1/3

22-IA-2519-24.doc

S.S.Kilaje

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only eye witness has not named the present appellant to be the person who caused assault on the injured. Similarly, it is his contention that accused Bapu @ Chandrakant B. Bhondave has been released on bail by this Court by this Court by order dated 24.10.2024, qua having regard to the similar role attributed to the present appellant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is also argued that appellant has already spent more than two years in jail.

Learned APP opposed the application by stating seriousness of the crime.

Though 11 witnesses are examined, prima facie perusal of the evidence indicates that except for PW-3, none of the witness claims to have seen the incident in question. He however does not name the present appellant to be the assailant or the one who was present at the spot of incident. Similar is the case of the co-accused Bapu who is enlarged on bail. The appellant has already undergone above two years period behind bar. The sentence imposed is for fixed term. Appeal is not likely to be heard in short time. Hence, parity applies. Application deserves to be allowed.

In view of above, following order:

ORDER

(i) Substantive sentence imposed against the applicant by

2/3

22-IA-2519-24.doc

S.S.Kilaje

order dated 16.03.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 437

of 2007 stands suspended till decision of the appeal.

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R.Bond

of Rs.25,000/- with one or two surety in the like amount.

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

3/3