Bombay High Court
Hanumant Dyanoba Thombare And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:49813
Shubhada S Kadam 28-APEAL-1029-2025 (CR).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3841 OF 2025
(for suspension)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2025
Atul Hanumant Thombare ... Appellant
Accused No.1
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4060 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2025
1. Hanumant Dyanoba Thombare .... Applicants
2. Sushma Hanumant Thombare Accused Nos.2 & 3
In the matter of
Atul Hanumant Thombare ... Appellant/
Accused No.1
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent/s
Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nilesh Navale,
Advocate for the Applicants in both applications.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vinayak Kapse, PSI, Walje Malwadi Police Station, present.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM 1. Interim Application No.3841 of 2025 is for suspension of
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
KADAM
Date: 2025.11.19
18:25:40 +0530
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:15:57 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 28-APEAL-1029-2025 (CR).doc
sentence and enlargement of the appellant/accused No.1 on bail in
connection with the judgment and order dated 24th September 2025
passed in Sessions Case No.918 of 2016 whereby the appellant is
convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced him to suffer 7(seven)
years rigorous imprisonment with fine.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that having regard
of the evidence on record, the conviction recorded against the
appellant/accused No.1 cannot be sustained at the time of hearing of the
appeal. It is his submission, the testimony of the informant, father of the
deceased, is full of omissions and contradictions and on the basis of his
evidence, the conviction ought not to have been recorded. He drew
attention of the Court to the admissions of the witnesses with regard to the
payment of Rs.2,00,000/- made by accused No.1 to the father of the
deceased and according to him, in such circumstances, there is no
substance in the allegations that the accused demanded money from the
father of the deceased. Reference is also made to the evidence with
regard to the demand at the time of marriage, which according to him,
from the evidence on record, becomes unacceptable. Finally, it is
submitted that since the appeal is not likely to be heard in short period of
time, the appeal may become infructuous, if the appellant is not enlarged
on bail. He claims that appellant/accused No.1 has no criminal history
behind him.
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:15:57 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 28-APEAL-1029-2025 (CR).doc
3. Learned APP opposed the application by drawing attention of
the Court to the evidence on record, which according to him is sufficient to
prove the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1.
4. In order to be entitled for the suspension of sentence and
enlargement on bail, the appellant/accused No.1 must show that he has a
reasonable case of success at the time of hearing of the appeal finally.
Prima facie perusal of the record and the evidence of witnesses as
pointed out to this Court indicate that the act of accused No.1 having paid
Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the victim during the relevant time, is
admitted. Similarly, the evidence with regard to the demand of dowry
incident at the time of marriage is inconsistent. There is evidence of the
father of the deceased indicating that the accused had alleged the illicit
relation of deceased with a particular person. In the facts of this case it
cannot be said that the appellant/accused No.1 has no case to make out
for his acquittal during the hearing of the appeal. Since the appeal is not
likely to be heard in short period of time and as the appellant/accused
No.1 has no criminal history, this is a fit case for allowing the application.
5. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3/applicants in Interim
Application No.4060 of 2025 are concerned, they are not convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 304-B but are convicted for offence
punishable under Section 498A and sentenced to suffer 1 (one) year
imprisonment. As discussed hereinabove, there are inconsistencies in the
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:15:57 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 28-APEAL-1029-2025 (CR).doc
evidence with regard to demand of dowry as a result of this, they are also
entitled for suspension of sentence.
6. In view of above, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The applications are allowed.
(ii) Substantive sentence imposed against the applicants/accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 by judgment and order dated 24th September
2025 passed in Sessions Case No.918 of 2016 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, stands suspended till the
decision of appeal.
(iii) The applicants/accused Nos.1,2 and 3 be enlarged on bail on
furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The interim applications stand disposed of in above terms.
7. It is clarified that above observations are made on prima facie
consideration of the material on record and the same shall not bind the
parties during the final hearing of the appeal.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
