Dismissed

Sanket Bhagwat Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Mar 2026APPLN/735/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application by a life convict for murder seeking release after about seven years of incarceration. The court held this was not sufficiently long imprisonment to warrant bail and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanket Bhagwat Wagh vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:15307-DB

drp

{1}

criapln735-26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.735 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2024

¶7

Sanket Bhagwat Wagh APPLICANT Age – 31 years, Occ – Education R/o Canal Road, Yashwantnagar, Beed, Taluka and District – Beed

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Station officer, Peth Beed Police Station, Beed District - Beed

¶10

Mr. N. V. Gaware h/f Mr. Z. H. Farooqui, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for Respondent - State

¶11

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. J.]

¶12

RESERVED ON : 25th MARCH, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10th APRIL, 2026

¶13

ORDER (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.):

¶14

This is the second bail application filed by the Applicant, convicted for commission of murder, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Special Atrocity Case No. 04 of 2019 and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life, along with fine.

¶15

{2} criapln735-26.doc

¶16

This Court (Coram : R. G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ) has rejected the Bail Application filed by the Applicant, on merits, on 23^rd October, 2024. While rejecting the Bail Application, this Court has considered the evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the Applicant and observed that, the Applicant’s case is not fit for suspension of sentence and bail.

¶17

The Applicant challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On 2^nd December, 2024, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Applicant is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

The Applicant is seeking bail on the ground of long incarceration. He claims that from the date of his arrest i.e. 25^th December, 2018, he was under trial prisoner and now, he has completed more than 7 years imprisonment. He is transferred to Paithan Open Jail. He has no criminal antecedents and, therefore, he may be released on bail, as his appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future.

¶19

In support of the Application, the Applicant has relied on Imprisonment Certificate dated 7^th January, 2026, issued by the Superintendent of Open District Prison, Paithan, which states that the Applicant is transferred from Chhatrapati Sambhaji

¶20

{3}

¶21

criapln735-26.doc

¶22

Nagar Central Prison to Open District Prison, Paithan on 8^th November, 2025 and since then he is undergoing sentence in the said prison. Reliance is also placed on the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of “Shankar @ Bunty Ramchandra Dabhade V/s The State of Maharashtra” dated 16^th May, 2023 in SLP (Cri) No. 4684 of 2023 and on the reported judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of “Saundan Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 and “Suleman V/s State of Uttar Pradesh” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1042 .

¶23

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State at length. Perused the Record.

¶24

In “Saundansingh” (supra), it is held that “.. for anybody who has completed 14 years of sentence, the case has to be put before the Board to be examined as per norms….. the second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years fo sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.”

¶25

In “Shankar @ Bunty Ramchandra Dabhade” (supra) he

¶26

was arrested on 17^th October, 2016 and was in custody for six and half years. By noting that, it is practically not possible for

¶27

{4} criapln735-26.doc

¶28

the trial court to complete the trial on account of the fact that there are 145 witnesses, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and the Appellant there was directed to be released on bail.

¶29

The Applicant is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The Bail Application filed by the Applicant is recently rejected by this Court, on merits. The report of the Central Prison shows that the Applicant is categorized under category “3”, therefore, he will have to undergo imprisonment for 22 years.

¶30

Taking into consideration the conspectus of the applicant’s case, we are of the view that 7 years’ imprisonment cannot be said to be sufficiently long incarceration, to release the Applicant on bail.

¶31

In the result, the Application is rejected.

¶32

[ VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

drp/criapln735-26.doc

Sanket Bhagwat Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanket Bhagwat Wagh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Muslehuddin Mohammed Siddiqui Died through Lrs Naghma E Zamzam Siddiqui and Others vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Rajabhau Sitaram Mali vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Javedkha Miyakhan Patel Died Thr Lrs and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suryakant Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryakant Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrashekar Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.