[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Manikrao Shivaji Kokate vs Senior Inspector Of Police on 19 December, 2025
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
2025:BHC-AS:56499 Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.12.20
16:20:25
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Interim Application No.4762 of 2025
In
Revision Application No.538 of 2025
Manikrao Shivaji Kokate
Age: 68 yrs. Occ: Agriculturist/
Advocate,
Residing at, Somthane, Taluka Sinner,
District Nashik. ... Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Senior Inspector of Police,
Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik ... Respondent.
With
Interim Application No.4763 of 2025
In
Revision Application No.538 of 2025
Manikrao Shivaji Kokate
Age: 68 yrs. Occ: Agriculturist/
Advocate,
Residing at, Somthane, Taluka Sinner,
District Nashik. ... Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Senior Inspector of Police,
Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik. ... Respondent.
Page No. 1 of 18
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2025 21:48:26 :::
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
Mr Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Shrishailya
Deshmukh, Mr Aniket Nikam, Mr Nimish Parekh for the
applicant.
Mrs Mankuwar Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor, a/w Mr
Shreekant Gavand, APP, for the respondent/State.
Mr Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate i/by Ankit Patil & Co.;
Mr Akhilesh Dubey i/by Mr Ashish Gabhale and Mr
Akhilesh Dubey i/by Jay & Co. for the Intervenors.
API Narendra Baisane, Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik
City.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 19 December 2025.
P.C. :
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present applications arise from the following
factual matrix. On 13 October 1995, the First Information
Report (FIR) No.350 of 1995 came to be registered at
Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik, at the instance of the
Additional Collector and Competent Authority (ULC),
Nashik, against the applicant (accused No.1) and three
other accused persons, for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
3. It is alleged that during the period between 1989 and
1992, the State Government implemented a housing scheme
for economically weaker sections, with eligibility restricted
to individuals having an annual income not exceeding
Rs.30,000/-. According to the prosecution, the applicant, in
connivance with the co-accused, submitted false income
affidavits, fabricated ration cards, and other forged
documents in order to unlawfully obtain residential flats
under the said scheme.
4. It is further alleged that although the applicant was
already the owner of one flat, he procured two additional
flats through benami transactions in the names of co-
accused (accused Nos.3 and 4). The prosecution
additionally alleges that the applicant amalgamated these
three flats, along with another flat owned by accused No.2,
into a single residential unit, thereby violating Rule 6 of the
terms and conditions governing allotment under the
scheme.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, on 25 March 1997, a
charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nashik. The applicant (accused No.1) faced trial
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
in RCC No.56 of 1997 before the Court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, for the aforementioned
offences. By a judgment and order dated 20 February 2025,
the learned trial Court convicted the applicant and
sentenced him as follows: (i) to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(with default stipulations) for the offence punishable under
Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC; (ii) to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(with default stipulations) for the offence punishable under
Sections 465 read with 34 of the IPC; (iii) to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(with default stipulations) for the offence punishable under
Sections 467 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC; (iv) to suffer
rigorous imprisonment of two years and pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (with default stipulations) for the offence
punishable under Sections 468 read with 34 of the IPC; and
(v) to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years and pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (with default stipulations) for the
offence punishable under Sections 474 read with 34 of the
IPC. These sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
appeal bearing No.48 of 2025 before the Sessions Court,
Nashik. By a judgment and order dated 16 December 2025,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, partly
allowed the appeal. The appellate Court acquitted the
applicant of the offences punishable under Sections 467 and
474 of the IPC and confirmed and upheld the applicant's
conviction under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with
34 of the IPC.
7. Dissatisfied, the applicant approached this Court by
filing a revision application, and by way of the present
applications, seeks a stay on the conviction and the
suspension of the sentence imposed and release on bail.
8. Mr Ravi Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the applicant, submits that the applicant is a
member of the legislative assembly and was elected in the
general elections held in 2024. The applicant holds the
office of Cabinet Minister for Sports and Youth
Development and previously represented the Sinnar
Assembly Constituency from 1999 to 2004, 2004 to 2009,
2009 to 2014, and 2019 to 2024. The applicant has a long-
standing political career spanning over 35 years. It is
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
contended that the prosecution's case suffers from material
inconsistencies and significant evidentiary shortcomings.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are fraught
with contradictions, omissions and discrepancies, rendering
them unreliable and insufficient to establish the applicant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence, when
considered as a whole, does not inspire confidence in its
reliability.
9. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned
Senior Counsel is that the prosecution witnesses failed to
substantiate the allegation that the applicant's income was
more than Rs.30,000/-, and the Courts below erroneously
proceeded to consider the applicant's income as on 5
October 1994, i.e., when the flat was allotted to the
applicant. Assuming arguendo, the case of the prosecution
at its face value, it is contended that no offence of forgery
or cheating is made out. There is no material on record to
demonstrate that the eligibility for the allotment shall be the
date of the actual allotment of the flat, not the date of the
application. There was no dishonest intention on the part of
the applicant from the outset.
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
10. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 8(3) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Mr Kadam
submits that the impugned order of conviction attracts the
applicant's disqualification as a Member of the Legislative
Assembly, which, if not stayed, would affect the members of
the constituency in remaining unrepresented. Not only
would the applicant suffer prejudice, but the electorate at
large, having exercise their franchise in favour of the
applicant and reposed confidence in his ability to represent
their constituency, would likewise suffer irreparable harm. It
is further submitted that if the conviction is not stayed, the
applicant will lose his seat, and if acquitted later on, the
harm caused to the applicant could not be compensated in
terms of money or otherwise, rendering the present
circumstances an exceptional case.
11. The learned Senior Counsel tenders a copy of the
medical report on record and submits that the applicant is
presently under inpatient care at the hospital, having been
admitted to a serious cardiac ailment and underwent
coronary angiography, which necessitates continuous
medical supervision and treatment.
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
12. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i) Afjal
Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 2 SCC 187; (ii)
Mohammed Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751;
(iii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of UP, (2024)
10 SCC 690; (iv) Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang, (1995)
2 SCC 513; (v) Ravikant S Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S Bagali,
(2007) 1 SCC 673; (vi) Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of
Punjab, (2007) 2 SCC 574; (vii) Sanjay Dutt vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 787; (viii) Lily Thomas vs.
Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653; (ix) Lok Prahari through
its General Secretary vs. Election Commission of India,
(2018) 18 SCC 114; (x) Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh
Ishwarbhai Modi, (2024) 2 SCC 595; (xi) K Ponmudi alias
Deivasigamani, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 600; (xii) Omprakash
@ Bacchu Babarao Kadu vs. State of Maharashtra,
2025:BOM-AS:12729; (xiii) Sayed Mohammed Noorul
Ameer vs. UT Administration of Lakshadweep represented
by its Standing Counsel, High Court of Kerala and Another,
2023 SCC OnLine Ker 604; and (xiv) Ikba vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 43.
13. On the other hand, Ms Mankuwar Deshmukh, the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
State, opposes the applicant's request. It is submitted that,
notwithstanding the applicant's sound financial position, he
dishonestly availed himself of the benefits of a State
Government welfare scheme intended exclusively for
persons belonging to economically weaker sections. By
misrepresenting his eligibility and securing allotment of flats
under the said scheme, the applicant not only abused and
subverted a benevolent public policy but also unlawfully
enriched himself at the cost of genuinely deserving
beneficiaries. It is further submitted that such conduct
amounts to a grave breach of public trust and a blatant
misuse of public resources.
14. Ms Deshmukh further submits that the evidence
brought on record, particularly the cogent and consistent
testimony of PW-8 read in conjunction with the
documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution,
conclusively establishes the guilt of the applicant. The
findings of conviction are well-reasoned and firmly founded
on the material on record, leaving no scope for doubt.
15. The attention of this Court is also invited to the
communication issued by the Housing & Special Assistance
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
Department, Mumbai, dated 29 September 1994, which,
according to the learned Public Prosecutor, has not been
complied with by the applicant. It is submitted that the
stipulation enumerated in this communication is not a mere
procedural formality but a substantive condition precedent,
integral to the determination of eligibility under the relevant
housing scheme. The entire allotment process is predicated
upon the principle of transparency and bona fide disclosure
and any deviation therefrom strikes at the root of the
integrity of the scheme. It is further submitted that the
obligation to disclose income particulars was of a continuing
nature. Even assuming, without admitting, that the
applicant had submitted an income declaration at the time
of the initial application he remained under a continuing
duty to disclose any subsequent increase in income prior to
the allotment being finalised. The applicant, in the present
case, willfully omitted to disclose his income, defeating the
very object of the stipulation contained in the terms and
conditions of the allotment and compromising the fairness
and transparency of the allotment process.
16. It is submitted that the applicant, in the allotment
form specifically declared his monthly income to be
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
Rs.2,500/- categorically stating that the said income was
derived solely from the legal profession. This declaration
was made with the intent to qualify under the income based
eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable norms
governing the allotment. However, a perusal of the
subsequent affidavit filed by the applicant reveals a material
contradiction. In this sworn statement, the applicant has
stated that the same monthly income of Rs.2,500/- was
derived from two distinct sources i.e. the legal profession
and the agricultural activities. It is further submitted that in
the original allotment form, the applicant had consciously
struck off the reference to agricultural income and confined
his declaration to income from the legal profession alone. It
is further submitted that such a shifting stand, particularly
in sworn pleadings, constitutes a material inconsistency that
directly impinges upon the applicant's mala fide and the
veracity of his disclosures. It is of considerable significance
that the applicant has, at no point, denied the existence of
income from agricultural land. The factum of agricultural
income thus stands admitted by conduct and by the
applicant's failure to deny the same. In such circumstances,
the applicant was under a legal and moral obligation to
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
disclose the said income ab initio and, at the very least,
prior to the finalisation of the allotment.
17. It is submitted that by projecting a selective and
incomplete income profile in the application form for
allotment and subsequently attempting to modify the same
through an affidavit, the applicant has sought to circumvent
the eligibility criteria. Such conduct vitiates the sanctity of
the allotment process. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, the applicant's case does not disclose any
exceptional or compelling grounds so as to justify the relief
of suspension of conviction.
18. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the
records.
19. Before delving into the merits of these applications, it
is imperative to note that the applicant is an elected member
of the legislative assembly and holds the office of Cabinet
Minister for Sports and Youth Development. Being vested
with a constitutional office, the applicant is under a solemn
obligation to uphold and exemplify the core tenets of
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
democratic governance, and to execute the functions of the
office with utmost integrity, impartiality, and an abiding
commitment to the public trust. This fiduciary position
demands a heightened standard of probity and
accountability, serving as a lodestar for ethical governance
and public service. The electorate's right to representation,
though fundamental, is not absolute and must yield to the
imperative of upholding legal accountability and preserving
institutional integrity.
20. The applicant was held guilty and convicted by the
trial Court, and the said conviction, with certain
modifications, has been affirmed by the Sessions Court in
the appeal. It is a settled position in law that a convict is a
person who has been adjudged guilty of a criminal offence
by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such adjudication
follows a judicial finding that the charges levelled against
the person have been duly proved. Consequently, a prayer
for seeking stay of conviction amounts to a request for
suspension of the operative consequences flowing from the
judicial declaration of guilt. It has been consistently held by
the Apex Court that, save in exceptional circumstances, an
appellate/revisional Court ought not to stay the conviction,
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
although it may suspend the execution of the sentence.
21. In the present case, the bone of contention falls on
whether, at the relevant time, the applicant's income was
more than Rs.30,000/-. Upon a perusal of the records,
particularly the testimony of Balasaheb Karbhari Narode,
the accountant at the Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
(PW-8), it appears that the applicant used to supply
sugarcane to the sugar factory and derived significant
income in his account from the supplied goods. His
testimony in cross-examination remains unshaken, and
nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his
version. A conjoint reading of the oral testimonies and the
documentary evidence prima facie indicates the applicant's
involvement in the crime. The applicant has, at no point,
denied the existence of income from agricultural land.
Furthermore, there has been a discrepancy in the
application filed by the applicant at the relevant time and
also an affidavit that he filed subsequently.
22. Furthermore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Afjal Ansari (supra), relied upon by the applicant,
would not render the applicant any assistance and is
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
distinguishable from the factual matrix of the present case.
In Afjal Ansari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt
with a situation where the crime for which the appellant
therein was convicted was solely based on another crime in
which the appellant therein had already been acquitted. In
such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant therein
came to be suspended, and the appeal was expedited.
However, in the matter at hand, there appears to be ocular
as well as documentary evidence against the applicant, and
the trial Court and the appellate Court appear to have
examined the entire evidence and reached the conclusion
that the prosecution has proved the case against the
applicant beyond a reasonable doubt.
23. It is an admitted position in law that the stay of
conviction is an exception and the Courts must consider the
wider ramifications, including public confidence. It has been
consistently emphasised that Courts must exercise extreme
caution when considering a stay of conviction, doing so
only in rare and exceptional cases.
24. In light of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the submissions made on behalf of the
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
applicant that the present case falls under the category of
'exceptional' for staying the conviction. This Court, thus,
finds no merit in the interim application bearing No.4763
of 2025 and the same is accordingly rejected.
25. 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 under Section 389 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A profitable
reference in this regard can be made to the decision in
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4
SCC 421.
26. This Court has duly considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor with respect to
the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the matter is
at the post-conviction stage. However, it is pertinent to note
that the sentence awarded to the applicant is of a relatively
short duration, being two years. Furthermore, the medical
report placed on record indicates that the applicant is
presently undergoing inpatient treatment for a serious
cardiac condition, which necessitates sustained medical
supervision and care.
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
27. In light of the above, this Court is inclined to suspend
the sentence imposed upon the applicant and release him on
bail during the pendency of the revision proceedings.
Accordingly, the interim application bearing No.4762 of
2025 stands allowed on the following terms:
(i) The sentence imposed upon the
applicant vide the judgment and order
dated 20 February 2025 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nashik, in RCC No.56 of 1997, and
modified by the judgment and order
dated 16 December 2025, passed by
Sessions Court, Nashik, in Criminal
Appeal bearing No.48 of 2025, stands
suspended during the pendency of the
appeal, subject to the applicant
depositing the fine amount.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on
bail upon executing a PR Bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and furnishing one or
more sureties in the like amount.
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
Chitra Sonawane 901-IA-4762,4763-2025.doc
28. The interim applications stand disposed of accordingly.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
19 December 2025
