Bombay High Court
Hemanshu Vasantlal Shah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 August, 2024
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
NISHA Digitally signed by
2024:BHC-AS:30943-DB
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2024.08.05
CHITNIS 12:34:09 +0530
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2455 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.741 OF 2018
Hemanshu Vasantlal Shah ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Bharat K. Manghani a/w Ms. Deepali Saudagar, for the Applicant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 1st AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is the third application preferred by the applicant
seeking 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 28 th
February 2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay
N. S. Chitnis 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2024 10:13:44 :::
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
in Sessions Case No. 213 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.5,000/-,
in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year;
- for the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 397 of
the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for five months;
- for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal
Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay
fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for five
months.
All the substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the ground
of long incarceration i.e. incarceration for more than 10 ½ years and
also on merits.
N. S. Chitnis 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2024 10:13:44 :::
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
5. Learned APP opposes the application.
6. Perused the application. The applicant's first application
was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file a fresh application,
if the appeal is not heard within a period of two years of the said
order. Accordingly, the application was disposed of as withdrawn with
liberty as prayed. The said order dated 3 rd July 2018 passed by this
Court is on page 50 of the application. The second application
preferred by the applicant was also withdrawn, since the record and
proceedings alongwith the paper-book was received by the registry.
Liberty was granted to the applicant to pursue his substantive appeal.
Accordingly, the second application was also disposed of as
withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty. The said order dated 15th
December 2022, passed by this Court is on page 51 of the application.
Admittedly, both the applications were not rejected on merits. It is not
in dispute that the prosecution case rests entirely on the circumstantial
evidence. As far as last seen evidence is concerned, there is no last
N. S. Chitnis 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2024 10:13:44 :::
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
seen evidence i.e. the applicant was last seen in the company of the
deceased. In fact, it appears that two other persons were in the
company of the deceased and were staying in the room at the relevant
time, just prior to the incident. Both the said witnesses were not
examined, much less there statements were not recorded by the police
during investigation. As far as the applicant is concerned, there is a
CCTV footage i.e. the applicant was seen in the passage where the
room was situated. As far as recovery of knife is concerned, there is
discrepancy with respect to finding of blood stains on the same. The
panch has identified the knife but has not identified the accused. As
far as recovery of money is concerned, i.e. Rs.3,40,000/- is concerned,
the panch witness has not been examined. The applicant is in custody
for more than 10 ½ years.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and keeping in mind
the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Saudan Singh v/s
State of Uttar Pradesh1, and Suleman v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh 2,
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 714
N. S. Chitnis 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2024 10:13:44 :::
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
the applicant has made out a case for allowing the application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant's sentence is
suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of the aforesaid 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.50,000/- 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 the 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;
38-ia.2455.2024.doc
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.
8. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
