Allowed¶32

Pawan Nanaji Kalmegh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Shirkhed Tq. Morshi Dist Amravati

Bombay HC12 Jun 2026APPA/391/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of execution of sentence; bail pending appeal; parity with co-accused; short-term sentences; Sections 143, 147, 153 read with Section 149 IPC; Sessions Case No.109/2023; Additional Sessions Judge-I Warud; judgment dated 15.04.2026; Criminal Appeal No.234/2026 suspension order dated 06.05.2026; P.R. bond Rs.25,000/- with solvent surety; Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2026; Criminal Application [APPA] No.391 of 2026; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; M.M. Nerlikar, J.; fine amount deposited; simple imprisonment concurrent sentences.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of execution of sentence allowed and disposed of; substantive sentence suspended; applicant/appellant to be released on bail on P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. ¶32

Pawan Nanaji Kalmegh vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Shirkhed Tq. Morshi Dist Amravati — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment awarded to the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Warud should be suspended pending the appeal, and whether the applicant should be released on bail.

¶17

Court's answer

On consideration of rival submissions, the Court found the applicant had a good case on merits, the sentences imposed were short-term, and the sentences were already suspended in respect of the other accused persons in Criminal Appeal No.234/2026 by order dated 06.05.2026; the Court was therefore inclined to suspend the sentence.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed and disposed of; the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Warud in Sessions Case No.109/2023 (judgment and order dated 15.04.2026) is suspended.

¶33

Key takeaways

The applicant/appellant is to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (M.M. Nerlikar, J.), Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2026 with Criminal Application [APPA] No.391 of 2026, order dated June 12, 2026. The applicant, convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Warud in Sessions Case No.109/2023 (judgment and order dated 15.04.2026) for offences under Sections 143, 147 and 153 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to simple imprisonment ranging from 2 to 6 months with fines of Rs.500/- (substantive sentences concurrent), sought suspension of execution of sentence. Held: the application was allowed and disposed of. The Court noted the applicant's good case on merits, the short-term nature of the sentences, and parity, since the sentences of the other accused persons had already been suspended by this Court's order dated 06.05.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.234/2026. The substantive sentence was suspended and the applicant/appellant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The main appeal stood admitted and R & P called for; the A.P.P. waived notice for the respondent.

120626apeal263.26

Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.263 OF 2026.

¶6

Pawan Nanaji Kalmegh - VERSUS-

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms T. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

¶11

DATE : JUNE 12, 2026.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Admit. Call for R & P.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. waives notice for the respondent.

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] NO. 391 OF 2026.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This is an application for suspension of execution of Sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeI, Warud vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2026 in Sessions Case No.109/2023. By this judgment and order, the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section

Rgd.

Order

120626apeal263.26

153 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 4 months for and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each, in default, applicant/ accused is order to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months each. For the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the applicant/accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months. For the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months each. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is having a good case on merits. The Trial Court has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and erred in convicting the applicant and considering this, the learned Counsel prays that the sentence be suspended. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in case of other accused persons i.e. Criminal Appeal No.234/2026, this Court has already suspended the sentence by order dated 06.05.2026.

¶24

On the other hand, learned APP opposes the application by submitting that the Trial Court has properly

Rgd.

Order

120626apeal263.26

scanned the entire evidence and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the applicant is guilty for the aforesaid offence. According to learned APP, there is no perversity and the Trial Court has not erred in considering the evidence and therefore, the appeal itself can be heard finally. Considering all theses aspect, she prayed to reject the application.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions. It appears from the record that the applicant has already deposited the fine amount. Considering all these aspects and since the applicant is having a good case on merit and the sentences imposed are short term sentences, and the same are already suspended in case of other accused persons by order dated 06.05.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No.234/2026, I am inclined to suspend the sentence, hence the following order :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i) The application is allowed and disposed of.

¶33

(ii) The substantive sentenced imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Warud vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2026 in Sessions Case No.109/2023 is hereby suspended.

¶34

(iii) The applicant/appellant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/06/2026 10:14:38 Rgd.

Pawan Nanaji Kalmegh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Shirkhed Tq. Morshi Dist Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Nanaji Kalmegh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Shirkhed Tq. Morshi Dist Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash S/O Santosh Doke vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Jalamb Tq. Shegaon Dist. Buldhana and Anr.

Milind Sanjay Dethe vs State of Maharashtra through Ps Arni

Manohar Hiralal Rathod vs Sunita Manohar Rathod

Amruta Pochana Durgam vs Pochanna Malayya Durgam

Gajanan @ Gaja S/O Kashiram Rawatkar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Narkhed Dist. Nagpur. and Anr.

Numan Sheikh S/O Sheikh Aziz @ Mohammad Numan Sheikh Ajij vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Nandanvan, Nagpur