Bombay High Court
Praful Ramchandra Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:50086
S.S.Kilaje 201-IA-1491-2025-Appeal-360-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1491 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2025
Praful Ramchandra Gaikwad ... Applicant/
Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...............
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani a/w. MayankaS.R., Advocates for the
Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. C.D.Mali, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 19th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :
1. This application is for suspension of substantive sentence and
enlargement of the appellant on bail in connection with the Judgment and
Order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2017 whereby
the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that perusal of the
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2025 21:10:03 :::
S.S.Kilaje 201-IA-1491-2025-Appeal-360-25.doc
evidence on record indicates that the presence of the appellant at the time
of robbery has not been proved. It is his submission that since the
appellant and co-accused were not convicted with the aid of Section 34 of
IPC or for criminal conspiracy, the appellant ought not to have been
convicted for the offence under Section 392. Without prejudice it is his
submission that even accepting the case of the prosecution as it is with
regard to the recovery of stolen articles, the offence at the most would be
under Section 411 of IPC. To support his submissions he placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajjaua Vs.
The State1. It is his submission that for the said offence the maximum
punishment prescribed is 3 years and that the appellant has already
undergone the said term.
3. Learned APP opposed the application by contending that there is
evidence to indicate that the appellant was seen along with co-accused just
before the occurrence of the incident of robbery. He drew attention of the
Court to testimony of Mohammed Ahmed, PW-4 who claims that the
appellant came with the co-accused and purchase a chikki. It is his
submission that the presence of the accused has been duly proved coupled
with the fact that there is recovery of substantial stolen property. In
response thereto, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, there could be presumption that appellant
1 1958 SCC OnLine ALL 260
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2025 21:10:03 :::
S.S.Kilaje 201-IA-1491-2025-Appeal-360-25.doc
is thief or receiver of the stolen property. It is his submission that both
cannot run together. It is argued that in the instant case except for the
alleged fact of the stolen property being recovered from him, he cannot be
connected with the actual incident of robbery. It is also argued that since
half of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is already undergone, it is a
fit case for enlargement on bail.
4. There is no dispute made with regard to the fact that the appellant
had undergone half of the sentence imposed against him. Owing to the
pendency, it is not possible that the appeal is heard in a short period of
time. Apart from this fact, the appellant is required to make out a case
that on merit the appellant would have reasonable case of success.
5. Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that none of the
witnesses have identified the appellant to be the person who was present
at the time of actual robbery. The statement of the pan shop owner relates
to the time prior to the occurrence of the incident. Pertinently, the
conviction has not been recorded by the Trial Court by holding that there
was any common intention between the accused to commit crime or
criminal conspiracy being proved. At this stage, therefore, there is
evidence with regard to the recovery of the stolen / robbed articles from
the appellant. This Court finds prima facie substance in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant that if it is not proved that the
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2025 21:10:03 :::
S.S.Kilaje 201-IA-1491-2025-Appeal-360-25.doc
appellant was present at the spot of the incident of robbery, it may be held
that he is receiver of the stolen property and in such circumstances, he
would be liable to be sentenced to suffer maximum period of imprisonment
of 3 years. Admittedly, he had already undergone more period than the
said period. Thus, it could be said that the appellant may have good case
on merit to argue at the time of final hearing
6. In view of above, following order:
ORDER
(i) The Application stands allowed.
(ii) The suspension of substantive sentence imposed
against the appellant by Judgment and Order dated
07.02.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2017
passed by Sessions Court stands suspended till
decision of appeal.
(iii) The appellant be released on P.R.Bond of
Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
SONALI by
SATISH Date:
SATISH KILAJE
KILAJE 16:43:20 +0700
2025.11.20
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
