Bombay High Court
Sanjay Rangrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally
signed by
2025:BHC-AS:34778 CHITRA
CHITRA
SANJAY
SONAWANE
SANJAY
SONAWANE Date:
2025.08.12
20:40:56
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 612.ia2761-25.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Interim Application No.2761 of 2025
In
Criminal Revision Application No.308 of 2025
Sanjay Rangrao Patil
Age-45 years, Occu-Ex-Army,
R/o-Belewadi Kalamma,
Tal-Kagal, Dist-Kolhapur
(At present lodged in Kolhapur
Central Prison, Kolhapur) ... Applicant
(Org. Accused)
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
----
Mr Anand S Patil, for the applicant.
Mr SM Mangaonkar, APP, for the respondent/ State.
----
Coram : R.N. Laddha, J.
Date : 11 August 2025
P.C.:
The applicant (accused No.1) faced trial in RCC No.11 of
2014 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ajara,
Kolhapur, for offences punishable under Sections 325, 324,
323, 504 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
('IPC'). By a judgment and order dated 9 January 2020, the
trial Court acquitted the applicant of offences punishable under
Page 1 of 5
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:47 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 612.ia2761-25.docx
Sections 504 and 427 of the IPC and convicted him for
offences punishable under Sections 326 read with 34 of the
IPC. The applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (with
default stipulations). Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred
an appeal bearing No.3 of 2020 before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur. By a judgment and order dated
16 July 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly
allowed the appeal and reduced the applicant's sentence from
one year to six months. 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 Anand Patil, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr SM Mangaonkar,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the
respondent/State.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused highlights
the alleged shortcomings in the prosecution's case and contends
that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses lack
credibility and fail to inspire confidence. The learned Counsel
further submits that the applicant was on bail during the
Page 2 of 5
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:47 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 612.ia2761-25.docx
pendency of the trial and appeal proceedings, and out of the
six-month term, the applicant has already been in custody for
over a month. The applicant is willing to comply with any
conditions this Court imposes and cooperate fully with the
revision proceedings, if released on bail.
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 conducted a
thorough examination of the evidence on record and
concluded, with a high degree of certainty, that the applicant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned APP submits
that the evidence on record strongly supports the prosecution's
case and does not warrant suspension of sentence and the
applicant's release on bail.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made
across the bar and perused the record.
6. It is a settled position in law that in cases where the term
of the sentence is fixed, the revisional Court can leniently
consider a convict's request for suspension of sentence and
release on bail, except in exceptional circumstances or where
statutory restrictions apply. If the sentence cannot be
suspended, the revisional Court must endeavour to adjudicate
Page 3 of 5
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:47 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 612.ia2761-25.docx
the revision on merits, especially when there is a request for
expeditious resolution. Failing to do so could jeopardise the
applicant's statutory rights due to the passage of time. When
practical circumstances hinder prompt resolution, the Court
must exercise heightened diligence in deliberating on sentence
suspension to maintain the effectiveness of the revision process.
Furthermore, when granting bail, the revisional Court has the
discretion to impose certain conditions. A profitable reference
in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs State of
Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421.
7. Upon perusing the records, it appears that the maximum
sentence imposed upon the applicant is a short one. The alleged
incident occurred in January 2014. While this Court is mindful
of the submissions advanced by the learned APP and the fact
that proceedings are at the post-conviction stage, it is essential
to recognise that the applicant has already been in custody and
has served more than a month out of the six-month term. The
applicant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial
and appeal proceedings. Considering the above and the
unlikelihood of the present revision being heard in the near
future due to the pendency of the older revision applications,
this Court deems it fit to suspend the applicant's sentence and
Page 4 of 5
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:29:47 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 612.ia2761-25.docx
release him on bail during the pendency of the revision
application. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The sentence imposed upon the applicant vide
order dated 9 January 2020, passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ajara, in RCC No.11 of 2014
and modified by the judgment and order dated 16
July 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur, in Criminal Appeal
No.3 of 2020, stands suspended during the
pendency of the revision.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail upon
executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing
one or more sureties in the like amount.
8. The interim application stands disposed of accordingly.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
11 August 2025
