[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vinod @ Sai Damodar Ghogale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 December, 2025
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4862 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2016
Vinod @Sai Damodar Ghogale ... Applicant/ Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.980 OF 2015
Sanjit Krishna Shetty @ Lafda Shetty ... Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2015
Mahesh Babji Kalingan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
--------------------
Mr. Subhash Jha along with Mr. Siddharth Jha, for the Applicant/
Appellant.
Mr. Chanderkant Jadhav, ACP, Crime Branch, D-1.
Manisha 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2025 20:33:00 :::
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
Ms. Vaishali Sarwade, API, Crime Branch, Unit-7, Ghatkopar,
Mumbai.
Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for the Respondent-State.
--------------------
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 31st DECEMBER, 2025.
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:
1. By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking stay of the
judgment and order dated 23/09/2015 passed by the learned Special
Judge in MCOC Special Case No.2 of 2010 along with MCOC
Special Case No.7 of 2010 arising out of DCB, CID F.I.R. No.154 of
2009 (corresponding F.I.R. No.286 of 2009 of Vikhroli Police Station,
Mumbai). By the impugned judgment and order, the Applicant who is
Accused No.5 was convicted for offence under Section 3(2) of the
MCOC Act, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5 lacs; in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. He was also convicted under Section
3(4) of the MCOC Act, however, in light of the sentence imposed
under Section 3(2), no separate sentence was awarded.
Manisha 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2025 20:33:00 :::
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
2. The Applicant thereafter preferred the present Appeal. The
Appeal was admitted by this Court on 09/02/2016. The Applicant had
preferred an application bearing Criminal Application No. 91 of 2016
for suspension of sentence and release the Applicant on bail during
pendency of the Appeal filed by him. That application for suspension
and bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02/03/2017. The
Applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by Single Bench of this Court, preferred Special Leave
Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court set aside the order
passed by this Court and released the Applicant on bail vide order
dated 03/10/2017.
3. Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Advocate for Applicant/ Appellant
states that he had never preferred an application of stay of the
judgment and order. He further states that he wants to contest the
election for the post of Municipal Corporator, however, because of his
conviction there is impediment to contest the election, on account of
Manisha 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2025 20:33:00 :::
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
bar of Section 8 of the Representatives of Peoples Act.
4. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, learned APP for the Respondent-State
states that after the impugned judgment and order was passed there is
yet another offence registered against the Applicant under Sections
307, 143, 144, 148, 149, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore,
he seeks rejection of the present application.
5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The
Applicant was behind the bars for more than seven years. The Appeal
is already admitted by this Court vide order dated 09/02/2016. The
only question which arises before this Curt is whether the impugned
judgment and order deserves to be stayed in light of that fact that the
sentence is of a fixed imprisonment of 10 years.
6. At the time of filing of the Appeal and at the time of decision of
the bail application, as per the statement of Mr. Subhash Jha, learned
Advocate for the Applicant/ Appellant, no application for stay was
Manisha 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2025 20:33:00 :::
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
preferred. For the first time, the present application is preferred in the
light of ensuing election of the Municipal Corporation. The Appeal is
already admitted and the Applicant has undergone more than 7 years
of sentence. The Appeal was not taken for hearing since February,
2016. The Appeal is admitted. Prima facie, it appears that, the
question of sanction arises in this matter. So also the requirement of
fulfillment of conditions of filing of two or chargesheets against each
of the accused within a period of ten years as contemplated under
definition of organized crime arises. Taking into consideration the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2005) 5
SCC 294], this is a fit case where the sentence needs to be stayed. The
Applicant wants to contest the election to the Municipal Corporation,
although right to contest election is not a fundamental right; yet his
right to participate in a democratic process is surely likely to be
effected. The present Application is preferred as per judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of Ravikant S. Patil Vs. Sarvabhouma S.
Bagali [(2007) 1 SCC 673). For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I
Manisha 5/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2025 20:33:00 :::
7-IA-4862-2025 IN APEAL-84-2016.doc
am inclined to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
application, this effect, implementation and execution of
the Judgment and Order dated 23/09/2015 passed by the
learned Special Judge in MCOC Special Case No.2 of
2010 along with MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2010
arising out of DCB, CID F.I.R. No.154 of 2009
(corresponding F.I.R. No.286 of 2009 of Vikhroli Police
Station, Mumbai) is stayed.
7. Stand over to 21st January, 2026 for further consideration.
8. All concerned parties to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
