Bombay High Court
Mahasidha Sidhanna Chougule vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 June, 2022
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1398 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2022
Mahasidha Sidhanna Chougule ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Payoshi Roy i/b Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the Applicant
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
V. G. BISHT, JJ.
THURSDAY, 16th JUNE 2022
P.C. :
1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his
sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal.
SQ Pathan 1/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
3 The applicant, vide judgment and order dated 23 rd
November 2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pandharpur, in Sessions Case No. 46/2010, has been convicted along
with 6 other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
·
4 Learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the ground
of parity. She submits that identically placed co-accused-Mahadeo
Balani Chougule's sentence was suspended and he was released on bail
by this Court (Coram : Nitin Jamdar & C. V. Bhadang, JJ.) vide order
dated 30th August 2021, passed in Criminal Application No. 969/2018
in Criminal Appeal No.1006/2017. Learned counsel relied on the said
order which is at Exhibit `D' at page 120 of the application. She
further submits that for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w
149 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has been sentenced to
suffer RI for 10 years along with fine. She submits that out of the 10
years, the applicant has undergone 4½ years of actual imprisonment.
SQ Pathan 2/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
5 On the last date, learned A.P.P had taken time to take
instructions and to peruse the evidence as to whether the role of the
applicant was at par with the co-accused Mahadeo Chougule, whose
sentence was suspended and who was enlarged on bail. Today, learned
A.P.P states that the role of the applicant is identical to the role of co-
acused-Mahadeo Chougule.
6 Perused the papers as well as the order dated 30 th August
2021 passed by this Court suspending co-accused Mahadeo
Chougule's sentence and enlarging him, on bail. It appears that the
applicant along with 13 others, were facing trial before the learned
Sessions Judge. After a full-fledged trial, out of the 14 accused, 6
accused were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment
and order dated 23rd November 2017. The applicant has been
sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years alongwith fine for the offence
punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and is
sentenced to suffer SI for 2 years for the offence punishable under
SQ Pathan 3/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court, whilst
suspending the sentence of co-accused-Mahadeo Chougule vide order
dated 30th August 2021 has observed in paras 9 to 11 as under :
"9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
circumstances and submissions made and we do find
that prima facie the multiple incidents which have
happened on 26 March 2010 are broadly the part of the
same transaction in which the rival groups were
involved. Insofar as the present Applicant is concerned,
PW-1 was injured and PW-2 has suffered a grievous
injury of loss of palms of both the hands. In the counter
case, Siddhanna Chougule who is the uncle of the
present Applicant has lost his life. We find that this
Appeal being of the year 2017 would take some time to
reach the stage of final hearing.
10. On behalf of the Applicant, reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar v/s. State
of M.P. (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 211 and
Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai and Ors. v/s. State of
Gujarat (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 421 in order to
submit, that normally in a case where the
Appellant/accused is sentenced to imprisonment for a
term (as against an imprisonment for life) the Appellant/
accused is entitled to be released on bail, unless there are
any exceptional reasons, requiring the denial of such
relief. He submitted that there are no exceptional reason
in the present case.
SQ Pathan 4/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
11. We further find that out of sentence of 10 years, the
Applicant has undergone the imprisonment for close to
4 years
now."
7 Learned A.P.P does not dispute that the role of the
applicant is similar/identical to that of the said co-accused-Mahadeo
Chougule, whose sentence has been suspended and who has been
enlarged on bail. The applicant has already undergone imprisonment
of about 4½ years, out of the sentence of 10 years. The appeal is
admitted by a separate order passed today.
8 Considering the aforesaid, we find that the role of the
applicant is identical to the role of the co-accused-Mahadeo Chougule
and hence, the applicant is also entitled for suspension of sentence and
enlargement on bail. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the
like amount;
SQ Pathan 5/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three
months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his
appeal is finally disposed of;
iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his
current address and mobile contact number and/or change of
residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;
iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before
the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the
High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
9 The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
SQ Pathan 6/7
26-IA-1398-2022.doc
10 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
V. G. BISHT, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
SQ Pathan 7/7
