Bombay High Court
Hanumant Gopal Ganesh Dhotre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally
2025:BHC-AS:34760 CHITRA
signed by
CHITRA
SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.08.12
19:56:07
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Interim Application No.2907 of 2025
In
Criminal Revision Application No.322 of 2025
Hanumant @ Gopal Ganesh Dhotre
Age:30 years,
Residing at: Ambedkar Nagar,
Near Subhash Mill,
Nyaymurti Chhagla Marg,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 99 ... Applicant
(Org. Accused)
versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Vile Parle
Police Station, Mumbai) ... Respondent
----
Mr Pawan Mali, for the applicant.
Mr SV Walve, APP, for respondent/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 11 August 2025.
P.C.:
The applicant/accused faced trial in Sessions Case No.525
of 2014 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay, for offences punishable under Sections 333
and 353 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The trial Court, vide
a judgment and order dated 15 November 2016, convicted the
Page 1 of 6
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:45 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
applicant under Section 333 of the IPC and sentenced him to
suffer simple imprisonment for two years along with a
direction to pay Rs.1000/- (with default stipulations). Aggrieved
thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal bearing No.71 of
2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, which was
dismissed on 16 July 2025. Dissatisfied, the applicant
approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction and, by the
present application, seeks suspension of the sentence and
release on bail, pending the outcome of the revision.
2. I have heard Mr Pawan Mali, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr SV Walve, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submits
that there exist material deficiencies in the prosecution's case
and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
unreliable and devoid of such probative value as would inspire
judicial confidence. He further submits that the applicant has
deposited the amount of fine imposed. The learned Counsel
contends that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
the date of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Sessions
Court. The applicant was enlarged on bail throughout the
course of trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal and
Page 2 of 6
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:45 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
therefore, and deserve for similar relief during the pendency of
the present revision application.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the
respondent/State, opposes the applicant's request and contends
that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have, upon a
comprehensive appreciation of the evidence adduced, returned
a concurrent findings of guilt against the applicant, holding the
prosecution's case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
learned APP further contends that the evidence on record
cogently supports the conviction and that no grounds exist for
suspension of sentence or for enlarging the applicant on bail at
this stage.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made
across the bar and perused the record. It appears from the
record that the alleged offence is stated to have occurred on 17
March 2014. Pursuant thereto, the learned trial Court, upon
conclusion of the proceedings, convicted the applicant by its
judgment dated 15 November 2016. The appeal preferred
against the said judgment of conviction and sentence came to
be dismissed by the Appellate Court on 16 July 2025.
6. It is a well-settled proposition of law that, in cases where
the sentence imposed is of a fixed term, the revisional
Page 3 of 6
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:45 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised with a degree of
leniency in favour of the applicant except in exceptional
circumstances or where statutory considerations so warrant. In
situations where the suspension of sentence is impermissible on
account of legal constraints, the revisional Court bears a duty to
decide the revision application on merits at the earliest,
particularly when an express prayer for expeditious
adjudication is made. Any undue delay in such adjudication,
especially in the post-conviction stage, may risk undermining
the statutory rights of the applicant owing to the efflux of time.
Where practical or systematic factors impede the prompt
disposal of the revision application, the Court is required to
exercise heightened circumspection and diligence while
considering an application for suspension of sentence, so as to
ensure that the very purpose of the revision proceedings is not
rendered nugatory. It is equally trite that, while granting bail in
such circumstances, the revisional Court retains the discretion
to impose such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and
proper to safeguard the interest of justice. In this context a
profitable reference may be made to the decision in Bhagwan
Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421,
which expounds upon the principles governing the suspension
of sentence during the pendency of an appeal or revision.
Page 4 of 6
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:45 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
7. In the present case, the maximum sentence awarded to the
applicant is two years' simple imprisonment. This Court has
duly considered the submissions of the learned APP and is
conscious of the fact that the proceedings are at the post-
conviction stage. It is, however, equally pertinent to note that
the applicant has been in custody since a month and was on bail
throughout the pendency of the trial and the appellate
proceedings.
8. In light of the above circumstances, and keeping in view
the unlikelihood of the present revision application being taken
up for hearing in the immediate future due to the pendency of
older matters, this Court deems it fit to suspend the applicant's
sentence and direct his release on bail, subject to the
appropriate conditions, during the pendency of the revision
application. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The sentence imposed upon the applicant vide
the judgment and order dated 15 November 2016
passed by the Adhoc District Judge and Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.525 of
2014, and confirmed by the judgement and order
dated 16 July 2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.71
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
Chitra Sonawane. 608.ia2907-25.docx
of 2017, stands suspended during the pendency of
the revision.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail upon
furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount.
9. The interim application stands disposed of accordingly.
[R.N. Laddha, J.]
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
