Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026IA/4168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

stay of conviction; Section 389(1) CrPC; suspension of conviction pending appeal; exceptional circumstances; election disqualification irreversible; Zilla Parishad Elections 2026 candidate; Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P. (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied upon; simple injuries; Section 307 IPC intention to kill not made out; 25 assailants; Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013; conviction dated 30.10.2025; Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2025; Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Shivkumar Dige J.; interim application allowed; order dated 19th January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Conviction dated 30.10.2025 (Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013) suspended during pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2025; Interim Application disposed of. ¶order (ii)

Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction dated 30.10.2025 (Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013) suspended during pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2025; Interim Application disposed of.

¶order (ii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction dated 30.10.2025 imposed on the Applicant (Accused No.1) in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013 should be stayed pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal, exercising discretion under Section 389(1) CrPC. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The Application falls within the category of exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of discretion under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the conviction itself.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Stay of conviction is not to be granted as a matter of course and can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

¶5

Key takeaways

Prima facie, except for simple injuries, no other injuries were caused, and therefore no intention of the Applicant to kill any of these witnesses can be inferred.ratio¶6
If about 25 persons are alleged to have assaulted the injured witnesses, there would ordinarily be serious injuries on their persons, which is not the case here.ratio¶6
It is not in dispute that the Applicant has been declared as a candidate for the Zilla Parishad Elections, 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J.) allows Interim Application No. 4168 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2025 and, exercising discretion under Section 389(1) CrPC, suspends the conviction dated 30.10.2025 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013 on Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam (Accused No.1) for offences under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, during pendency and final disposal of the appeal. Holding that stay of conviction is not a matter of course and requires exceptional circumstances, the Court found them present: (i) the Applicant is a declared candidate for the Zilla Parishad Elections, 2026, and an operating conviction would trigger statutory disqualification causing irreparable prejudice that cannot be undone even if the appeal ultimately succeeds (relying on Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., (2024) 2 SCC 187); and (ii) prima facie only simple injuries were inflicted, so no intention to kill could be inferred, notwithstanding that about 25 persons were alleged to have assaulted the injured witnesses. Interim Application disposed of.

¶1

4-IA-4168-2025 (CR).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4168 OF 2025 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2025

¶5

Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam … Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep Kekane, Mr. Akash Kavade, Mr. Yasir Khan and Mr. Viral Babar, for the Applicant. Mr. P.P.Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.

¶9

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2026.01.22 KILAJE 17:22:18+0700

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 19^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The Applicant/Accused No.1 has preferred this Interim Application seeking to stay the conviction dated 30.10.2025 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge by the Judgment and Order in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal. The Applicant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 506, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

¶13

Learned Senior counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been declared as a candidate for the forthcoming Zilla

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

4-IA-4168-2025 (CR).doc

¶16

S.S.Kilaje

¶17

Parishad Elections, 2026, and continuation of the conviction would result in serious consequences, including disqualification from contesting the election. He further submitted that the conviction is mainly based on the testimony of the first informant and other interested witnesses, and no independent witnesses have been examined, despite the incident having occurred at busy public place. He further submitted that there is no recovery of weapon at the instance of the Applicant nor there is direct evidence connecting him with the alleged assault. The Medical Officer has opined that all injuries sustained by the witnesses are simple in nature and could have been caused due to a fall, manhandling, or a general scuffle. It is contended that although about 25 persons are alleged to have assaulted six witnesses, the absence of any serious injury indicates that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶18

Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that the offences are serious in nature and the trial court has recorded findings of guilt against the Applicant after appreciating evidence on record. He submitted that there were multiple assaults and injuries caused to the victims. The Applicant has criminal antecedents and criminal proceedings are pending against him before competent courts, and requested to reject the Application.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

4-IA-4168-2025 (CR).doc

¶21

S.S.Kilaje

¶22

I have heard both the learned Counsel, perused the impugned Judgment and Order.

¶23

It is well settled that stay of conviction is not to be granted as a matter of course and can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afjal Ansari v. State of UP¹ has held that where non-grant of stay to conviction would lead to irreversible consequences, particularly disqualification from elections, the Appellate Court is empowered to grant such relief, specifically noting that disqualification of an elected representative creates an “irreversible” situation that cannot be undone even if the conviction is later set aside

¶24

In the present case, prima facie perusal of the record indicates that except for simple injuries, no other injuries are caused in order to infer any intention of the Applicant to kill any of these witnesses. In the present case, if about 25 persons are alleged to have assaulted the injured witnesses, there would ordinarily be serious injuries on their persons, which is not the case here.

¶25

Further, it is not in dispute that the Applicant has been declared as a candidate for the Zilla Parishad Elections, 2026, and if the conviction is allowed to operate during pendency of the appeal, the Applicant would suffer irreparable prejudice, as the statutory disqualification would come

¶26

1 Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., (2024) 2 SCC 187

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

4-IA-4168-2025 (CR).doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

into effect, which cannot be undone even if the appeal ultimately succeeds.

¶31

In the view of above, this Application falls within the category of exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of discretion under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the conviction itself.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The Interim Application is allowed.

¶34

(ii) The conviction imposed upon the applicant by Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2013 is suspended during the pendency and final disposal of the above criminal appeal.

¶35

Interim Application is disposed of.

¶36

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Vitthal Bhoir @ Chotam v. State of Maharashtra

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

Rahul Bhausaheb Gulave vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejaabsingh @ Tejas Shitalsingh Kalyani vs the State of Maharashtra

Sohail Hanif Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Shamrao Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Paresh Gosaliya vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinay Vikas Khemnaik vs the State of Maharashtra