Bombay High Court
Sanjay Anant Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 June, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, Gauri Godse
2023:BHC-AS:16234-DB
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1375 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2019
Sanjay Anant Patil ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Prashant Jadhav i/b Ms. Syed Shabana Mashkoor Ali, for the
Applicant.
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 15th JUNE 2023
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.
3. The applicant vide Judgment and Order dated 7 th
February 2019, passed by learned District Judge-4 and Additional
N. S. Chitnis 1/6
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2014, has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-
in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months;
- for the offence punishable under Sections 3 r/w 25 of the
Indian Arms Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo further simple
imprisonment for 3 months.
4. Perused the papers with the assistance of the learned
counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. The prosecution case
rests on the circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as, the eye-witnesses
have turned hostile and as such have not supported the prosecution
case. The circumstantial evidence is in the form of a dying declaration
made by the injured - Pradipkumar Bhartiya. The injured -
Pradipkumar has in his dying declaration stated that his and his
brother's vehicle was hired by the applicant on the day of the alleged
N. S. Chitnis 2/6
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
incident i.e. on 26th September 2013. He has stated that he learnt
from the conversation between the applicant and other persons sitting
in the vehicle, that they wanted to loot cash from a bank, at
Ulhasnagar. He has stated that when he was driving the car, the
applicant sitting with some other persons, asked him to cover a Swift
Car, which was ahead of them. He has stated that he suddenly heard
a shot being fired and that the bullet hit him in his back. According to
the injured, the applicant was armed with a pistol. He has further
stated that the applicant told him that the bullet hit him accidentally.
According to the injured, soon after he sustained an injury, he was kept
on the back seat of his car by the applicant and other inmates, and
the applicant sat in the driver's seat and drove the vehicle to the
hospital, where he was admitted. The injured in his dying declaration
has further stated that the applicant fired a bullet at him from a pistol
because he was angry, as the applicant was not able to cover the Swift
vehicle. Initially the police registered an offence under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code and under the Arms Act, as against the
applicant. However, as the injured succumbed to his injuries, Section
N. S. Chitnis 3/6
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After trial, the applicant was
convicted as stated aforesaid in para 3 of the order.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said
statement of the injured is not corroborated by any other evidence.
He submits that even the ballistic expert report, has not been placed
on record by the prosecution to show that the bullet that was fired
belonged to the applicant. He further submits that the weapon was
found in the car and not recovered at the instance of the applicant.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the dying
declaration will show that the applicant had accidentally fired the
bullet from his pistol and that it was not his intention to kill the
deceased. He further submits that the same is evident from the
conduct of the applicant, inasmuch as, the applicant kept the deceased
on the back seat of the car with the help of other inmates and himself
drove the deceased to the hospital where the injured was admitted.
He submits that the applicant is in custody since the date of his arrest
i.e. 26th September 2013 i.e. for almost 10 years. Learned counsel
N. S. Chitnis 4/6
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh
v/s State of Uttar Pradesh1. The Appeal has been admitted by this
Court vide order dated 29th August 2019 and the same is not likely to
come up for the hearing in the immediate near future.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody for
almost 10 years and having regard to the material/ evidence on record,
the application is allowed and the applicant's sentence is suspended
and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of
his Appeal, on the following terms and conditions :-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;
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
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697
N. S. Chitnis 5/6
26-appa.1375.2019.doc
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.
7. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 6/6
