Bombay High Court
Surendra Haribhau Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2024
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
2024:BHC-AS:31761-DB
PATHAN
QUTBUDDIN
Date:
PATHAN 2024.08.09 18-IA-2030-2024.doc
11:38:21
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2030 OF 2024
(For Suspension of Sentence and Bail)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2024
Surendra Haribhau Patil ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. S. C. Mangle a/w Mr. Balwant Salunkhe for the Applicant
Mr. Ajay S. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
WEDNESDAY, 7th AUGUST 2024
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 his aforesaid appeal.
SQ Pathan 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 01:49:23 :::
18-IA-2030-2024.doc
3 The applicant vide judgment and order dated
22nd April 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad,
Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 146/2012 has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code (`IPC'). Separate substantive sentences have been
awarded for each of the said offences. As far as the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC is concerned, the applicant has been
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for
one year. As far as offence punishable under Section 201 of the
IPC is concerned, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six
months.
The other co-accused in the same case have been
acquitted. The applicant has also been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 120B of the IPC.
SQ Pathan 2/5
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2024 01:49:23 :::
18-IA-2030-2024.doc
4 Perused the papers. Admittedly, the prosecution case
rests on the circumstantial evidence i.e. the evidence of last seen.
In order to prove the said circumstance, the prosecution has
examined two witnesses i.e. PW10-Vikas Randive and PW11-
Suresh Patil.
5 Having perused the evidence of both the witnesses,
prima facie, we are of the opinion that the evidence that has come
on record, cannot be termed as last seen. It is not in dispute that
the applicant was on bail pending trial and has not misused the
conditions of bail.
6 Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed
and the applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on
bail on the following conditions:
ORDER
i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing
18-IA-2030-2024.doc
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 six 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 accordingly disposed of.
18-IA-2030-2024.doc
8 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
