Bombay High Court
Ramesh Ganpati Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:34024-DB
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2704 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 2024
Ramesh Ganpati Gaikwad ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_______________________
Mr. Kedar Patil a/w. Mr. Sachin Mane, Mr. Pratik Tare and Ms. Sakshi
Kadam for the Applicant.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
_______________________
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 07th AUGUST, 2025
P.C. :-
. Heard Mr. Kedar Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent - State.
2) The instant Application has been filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to suspend the jail sentence and also to release the
Applicant on bail, pending disposal of the aforesaid Criminal Appeal.
3) By Judgment and Order dated 30/04/2024 in Sessions Case
No.20/2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur, District
Kolhapur had convicted the Applicant for commission of the offence
07th August, 2025
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and
sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
4) The Applicant was arrested on 23/03/2019 and since then, he
is in jail, thus, spending more than 06 years and 04 months in custody as on
date.
5) It appears that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence wherein the extra-judicial confession of the Applicant brought on
record through the P.W.4 and P.W.5, have been relied upon by the learned
trial Court so as to convict him.
6) Mr. Kedar Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued
that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted on its face value, even
then, this is a clear case of grave and sudden provocation triggering the
incident and therefore, the Applicant cannot be held guilty for committing
the murder of his wife which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC. On such counts, the Applicant's Counsel has prayed for release of
his client on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
7) The prayer of the Applicant for release on bail has been
strenously opposed by Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent -
State by submitting that this is not the case merely based on extra-judicial
07th August, 2025
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
confession, but the other circumstantial evidence brought on record
undoubtedly goes to show that it was a case of pre-planned murder of the
deceased. While refuting the arguments advanced by the Applicant's Counsel
as regards presence of the element of grave and sudden provocation, Ms.
Dabholkar, learned APP has further argued that the learned Trial Court has
rightly found the accused guilty of committing the murder of his wife.
Therefore, the bail application be rejected.
8) We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
also gone through the materials available on record.
9) As has been noted hereinabove, it appears from the material on
record that, on 23/03/2019 i.e., the date of the incident, things were normal
for the Applicant and his wife until the time he had asked for buttermilk
from his wife and possibly found that stale buttermilk was offered to him by
his wife. This enraged the Applicant and therefore, instead of drinking the
buttermilk, he only had "shabu" . But the matter did not end there. In the
afternoon, when he had asked for a cup of tea from his wife, she had abused
him in filthy language and thereafter, left the house. The evidence on record
further indicates that, the wife (deceased) had taken off her marriage string
(mangalsutra) so as to apparently indicate that she did not want to maintain
the marital relationship with the accused. These circumstances coupled with
the fact that a quarrel did take place between the accused and the deceased
07th August, 2025
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
just before the incident, raises sufficient presumption as to the presence of
grave and sudden provocation to the accused, thus, suggesting the
possibility of bringing the case within the ambit of Explanation 1 and 4 of
Section 300 of the IPC.
10) It is the established law that, the extra-judicial confession is
weak piece of evidence. Although the incident had allegedly taken place in a
bus stop, yet, it appears that there was no eye witness to the incident. Some
doubt would, therefore, arise as to whether, the charge brought under
Section 302 of the IPC had, at all, been proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
11) We have also noted that, after the incident, the Applicant
himself went to the police station and reported the incident, thus, portraying
the lack of any attempt on his part to flee the scene or of disowning the
occurrence.
12) After scanning through the material available on record and
after considering the submissions made at the bar, we find force in the
submissions of the Applicant's Counsel that, the possibility of conversion of
the conviction of the Appellant to a lesser offence, cannot be ruled out in
this case. However, the said aspect of the matter would fall for detailed
consideration of this Court only at the time of final hearing of the Appeal
which would take some time.
07th August, 2025
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
13) In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the prayer made
in the Application. Hence, the following Order :-
- ORDER-
(a) The Applicant - Ramesh Ganpati Gaikwad is
directed to be released on bail in Sessions Case No.20/2019, on
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court.
(b) The Applicant shall register his attendance before
the officer in-charge of the Kurundwad Police Station, Tal.
Shirol, District Kolhapur on the 1 st Monday of every month
during the pendency of this Appeal.
(c) The Applicant shall maintain good behaviour and
desist from any anti social activity during the currency of the
bail order.
(d) The Applicant shall ensure due representation
before this Court as and when his Criminal Appeal is listed for
hearing.
(e) The Applicant shall not, in any manner, make
attempt to intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
07th August, 2025
P.H. Jayani 08 IA2704.2024.DOC
14) Before parting with the record, we make it clear that, the
observations made herein above are tentative in nature and have been made
purely for the limited purpose of disposing of this Interim Application.
However, we make it clear that violation of any of the above noted
conditions would be viewed seriously and if the Applicant is found
disobeying the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to
move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
15) With the above observations, Interim Application is disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI
07th August, 2025
