Bombay High Court
Pratik @ Golu Arun Sathale vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 November, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, Gauri Godse
12.3989.23 ia.doc
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3989 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2023
Pratik @ Golu Arun Sathale ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents
Mr. Niranjan S. Mundargi a/w Mr. Rushikesh Kale and Mr. Shubham
Bandal for the applicant
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE : 9th NOVEMBER 2023
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this application, the applicant-original accused no. 2 seeks his
enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of his
aforesaid appeal.
3. Applicant, vide Judgment and Order dated 21 st October 2022
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.
1/5
12.3989.23 ia.doc
770 of 2017 has been convicted and sentenced along with another co-
accused-Shubham Jamnik as under:
- for the offence punishable under section 302, read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and
fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for
one year.
- for the offence punishable under section 201, read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence. It is the prosecution case that the applicant
alongwith co-accused no. 1-Shubham Jamnik kidnapped the
complainant's daughter aged 4 years and thereafter, killed her. FIR
was lodged by the complainant - Amol Arude, initially for offence
2/5
12.3989.23 ia.doc
punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently,
on the dead body being found, section 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code came to be added. Admittedly, charge has not been framed
under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code as against the accused.
The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
According to the prosecution, two pillows were recovered at the
instance of the applicant, however, recovery of the said pillows cannot
be said to be incriminating, as the prosecution has not brought forth
evidence, as to how the said pillows were used in the commission of
the offence. As far as P.W. 10-Sarika Kshirsagar is concerned, he has
stated that initially both the accused helped the complainant in
searching for the complainant's daughter (deceased) and thereafter,
went out of station and that when they left, they had red a coloured
bag with them. It is the prosecution case that when the dead body was
recovered at the instance of accused no. 1-Shubham Jamnik, a red
piece of bag was found at the instance of the co-accused no. 1-
Shubham Jamnik. There is no evidence to show that the applicant was
carrying the bag. From a perusal of the Judgment, in particular,
3/5
12.3989.23 ia.doc
paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the Judgment, it appears that the learned
Judge whilst convicting the applicant has laid great emphasis on the
pleadings made by the applicant in his bail application filed by his
lawyer. Learned Judge has quoted the pleadings made in the bail
application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the reliance placed
on the pleadings made in a bail application which was not signed by
the applicant, cannot form the basis for convicting the applicant.
6. There appears to be substance in the said submission. As noted,
no other evidence has come on record to connect the applicant with
the alleged offence. Apart from what is stated aforesaid, the applicant
has been in custody since 2017 and the appeal is not likely to come up
for hearing in the immediate near future. Considering the same, 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:
4/5
12.3989.23 ia.doc
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in four 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.
7. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2023 17:01:24
