Bombay High Court
Bharat Ravji Shinare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
(905)-IA-2775-22.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2023.02.03
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2775 OF 2022
10:31:58
+0530
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2016
Bharat Ravji Shinare ..Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2016
Arvind Govind Thombre ..Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Bharat Ravji Shinare ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.173 OF 2016
Arvind Govind Thombre ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Akshata B. Desai, for the Applicant/Appellant
in IA No.2775/2022.
Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Amey Deshpande, for the Appellant in Appeal No.173/2016.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2023
BGP. 1 of 3
(905)-IA-2775-22.doc.
P.C.
1. In Sessions Case No.98 of 2012, Additional Sessions
Judge, Raigad-Alibag convicted the Applicant/appellant for an
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and under other allied
sections and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment by judgment
and order dated 20th January, 2016.
2. Our attention is invited to the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-4 who are eye witnesses to the incident, so also PW-9/Dr.
Pratyush who has performed postmortem of the deceased.
3. The fact remains that the applicant was arrested on 11 th
May, 2012 and has almost completed ten years of his imprisonment.
4. The role attributed to the applicant is that of giving
single blow by sword, however, the sword recovered at the instance
of the applicant is informed to have been not carrying blood stains
as reflected from the report of the chemical analyzer.
5. The cause of death cited in the postmortem report is
head injury, polytrauma, hemorrhage and shock.
6. One of the ground canvassed for grant of relief under
Section 389(1) of the CrPC is that of suffering of incarceration by
applicant/appellant for a period of almost ten years. Reliance is
placed on the order of Apex Court in the matter of Suleman Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh.
BGP. 2 of 3
(905)-IA-2775-22.doc.
7. Though the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail is
objected by the learned APP Mr. A. R. Kapadnis assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant by relying on the testimony of PW-1
and PW-4 who are eye witnesses, however, this Court is required to
be sensitive to the directions of the Apex Court in the matter of
Suleman (cited supra). The fact remains that the appeal is of the
year 2016 and is not likely to be heard in recent future considering
the pendency. Apart from above, applicant/appellant having
completed incarceration for a period of ten years and the case in
which he is convicted is of single blow, we feel appropriate to grant
relief under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. The sentence is suspended.
8. Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
9. Applicant must report to the Neral Police Station in first
week of every English calendar month till conclusion of hearing of
appeal and shall not try to establish any contact with the witnesses.
10. Applicant shall also furnish his address and contact
number to the Police Station officer, Neral Police Station.
11. Interim Application No.2775/2022 stands allowed in
above terms.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
