[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kiran Suresh Gaikwad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:15803
CriAppln-1245-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1245 OF 2026
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2026
1. Kiran Suresh Gaikwad,
Age - 38 years, Occu. - Labourer,
2. Rahul Suresh Gaikwad,
Age - 35 years, Occu. - Labourer,
3. Nilesh Suresh Gaikwad,
Age - 27 years, Occu. - Labourer,
4. Rani Suresh Gaikwad,
Age - 30 years, Occu. - Labourer,
All r/o - Siddharth Nagar,
Chitod Road, Dhule. ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through Dhule City Police Station,
Dhule, District Dhule. ... Respondent
.....
Mr. Amit S. Savale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent-State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 10.04.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
ORDER :
1. Present application is for suspension of sentence in
consequence to conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Dhule
in Sessions Case No. 66 of 2017 for offence under Sections 307, 323,
324, 452, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, Sections 4, 25 of the
CriAppln-1245-2026
Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(2) r/w 135 of Bombay Police Act,
respectively
2. Learned counsel submitted that present applicants faced trial
vide Sessions Case No. 66 of 2017 for above offences and judgment
came to be rendered on 23.03.2026 recording conviction. It is
submitted that after registration of crime, accused Kiran Suresh
Gaikwad, Rahul Suresh Gaikwad, Nilesh Suresh Gaikwad were
granted regular bail by the trial court. That, applicant Rani Suresh
Gaikwad was beneficiary of anticipatory bail during trial. He pointed
out that, there are allegations against Kiran for pouring petrol, but
there is no evidence to that extent. That, though there are allegations
against Nilesh for assaulting by means of sword, there is no injury to
that effect. That, there is only injury on account of overt act of Rahul,
that too a CLW injury. He pointed out that as against applicant Rani is
concerned, specific overt at and role is not crystallized. That, all these
applicants have preferred appeal before this Court which is recent one
and they have good case on merits. That, appeal being of the year
2026, there are no immediate prospects of hearing the same. It is
further pointed out that, conviction of applicant Kiran, Nilesh and
Rani is for commission of offence under Sections 452 of IPC which is
an offence for committing trespass, however he pointed out that
CriAppln-1245-2026
prosecution evidence itself shows that occurrence has taken place
outside the house and therefore, charge as well as conviction for
offence under Section 452 IPC is misplaced and misdirected. for all
above reasons, relief of suspension of sentence us urged for.
3. Learned APP would strongly oppose by pointing that, on full-
fledged trial and on complete appreciation of evidence, guilt has been
recorded. He pointed out that, offence of attempt to commit murder
has been proved to be committed. That, apart from use of petrol for
igniting, it is shown that there is use of deadly articles like sword and
gupti. Had injured not received timely medical aid, it would have
turned out to be fatal and therefore, serious offence being proved to
have been committed, learned APP strongly opposes the relief of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the papers and FIR. It is revealed
that, applicants are tried vide Sessions Case No. 66 of 2017 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhule and vide judgment and order dated
23.03.2026, accused no.2 Kiran, accused no.5 Nilesh and accused
no.7 Rani have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections
452, 504, 506 r/w 149, 143, 147 of IPC and Section 37(1)(3) r/w
135(i)(iii) of the Bombay Police Act. Whereas, accused no.4 Rahul, in
CriAppln-1245-2026
addition to all above offences, has also been convicted for offence
under Sections 307, 324, 323 r/w 149, 148 of IPC and Section 4 r/w
25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.
5. Therefore, here, apparently, applicant Rani is a lady and role
attributed to her is regarding use of piece of tile but as pointed out,
where it was hit, is not specifically stayed. However, there are
allegations against rest of the applicants, i.e. applicant Kiran for
pouring petrol, whereas against Nilesh there are allegations of use of
sword and as regards to accused Rahul is concerned, he was armed
with gupti. Therefore, these three applicants have prima facie made
their intention explicit. Consequently, only applicant Rani deserves
the relief. Hence, following order :
ORDER
I. Application of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 is dismissed.
II. Application of applicant no.4 Rani Suresh Gaikwad (accused
no.4) is allowed.
III. The substantive sentence imposed on applicant no.4 Rani Suresh
Gaikwad (accused no.4) in Sessions Case No. 66 of 2017 by the
Sessions Judge, Dhule on 23.03.2026 stands suspended only to
her extent till the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal
No. 225 of 2026.
CriAppln-1245-2026
IV. The applicant Rani Suresh Gaikwad be released on P.R. Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with two solvent
sureties in the like amount.
V. The applicant Rani Suresh Gaikwad shall not commit any
criminal activity.
VI. The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge
once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,
commencing from the date she tenders bail papers and
thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for her subsequent
appearances.
VII. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to
remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform
this court about the same and in that eventuality, the
prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of bail granted to her.
VIII. Bail before the trial court.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
