[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9262
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 509 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2023
Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur
Age: 62 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Mill-road, Nanded
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate h/f Mr.G.S. Shete, Advocate for applicant
Ms. U.S. Bhosle, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :
. Heard.
2. This is an application for stay of conviction. The applicant / accused
Deelip Thakur is praying for staying his conviction awarded vide order dated 11 th
April, 2023 in Sessions Case No. 358 of 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Nanded. The present applicant was shown as Accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.
358 of 2019, who along with other accused was convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 341, 353 and
427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and under
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 1984'). All the 19 accused, who were tried by the Sessions
Court, were convicted for the aforesaid offences as under :-
Section Sentence Fine (Rs.) In Default
148 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years 10,000/- R.I. for 6 months
353 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 2 years 50,000/- R.I. for 6 months
332 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 years 50,000/- R.I. for 6 months
336 r/w 149 IPC R.I. for 3 months 250/- R.I. for 3 days
341 r/w 149 IPC S.I. for 1 month 500/- S.I. for 6 days
3 of Act of 1984 R.I. for 5 years 50,000/- R.I. for 1 year
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the
aforesaid conviction, various appeals were preferred by the accused persons,
including the appellant.
3. Heard Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
Bhosle, learned A.P.P. for the respondent - State.
4. In order to push his prayer for grant of stay to the conviction, Mr.
Gangakhedkar has invited my attention to the order dated 17 th April, 2023,
passed by this Court while suspending the sentence imposed. The crux of the
order dated 17th April, 2023, is that since the conviction was awarded on 11 th
April, 2023 and the sentence imposed, copies of the judgment were not supplied
to the applicant on that day, but were supplied to the other four accused. He
then contended that, considering the seriousness of the lapses in complying with
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.P.C.'), bail was granted and sentence was suspended.
5. Mr. Gangakhedkar further contended that his client is desirous to file
his nomination for the post of 'Councillor / Nominated Councillor'. He then
invited my attention to the provisions of Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MMC Act'), which defines
a person duly elected as a member of the Corporation, and includes a nominated
Councillor who shall not have the right, -
(i) to vote at any meeting of the Corporation and Committees of the
Corporation; and
(ii) to get elected as a Mayor of the Corporation or a Chairperson of
any of the Committees of the Corporation;
According to this definition, a Councillor includes the Nominated
Councillor also.
6. Section 5 of the MMC Act was also relied upon by Mr. Gangakhedkar
in order to apprise the Court about the constitution of the Corporation, which
consists of various councillors. A specific attention was drawn to Section 5(2)(b)
of the MMC Act, which says that a number of nominated councillors not
exceeding five, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal
Administration, are to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may
be prescribed. According to him, the population of the Corporation, i.e. Nanded-
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
Waghala Municipal Corporation, would decide the question of the number of
councillors.
7. Section 10 of the MMC Act was also taken recourse to, which speaks
about the qualification for being a councillor. He then argued that in view of
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10, a person shall be disqualified for
being elected and for being a councillor if such a person has been convicted by a
Court in India of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six
years has elapsed since the date of such conviction. He then contended that
since the offences for which he was convicted would be an offence of moral
turpitude, he would in fact be disqualified for being appointed as a councillor.
8. He also invited my attention to the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporation (Qualification and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules,
2012, more particularly Rule 4, which prescribes the qualification for
nomination. The said rule says that -
"A person shall be eligible for being nominated as a candidate for
the office of the nominated Councillors if he has special
knowledge or experience in municipal administration and he, -
(g) has experience of not less than five years as an office bearer
of a Non-Government Organisation registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950, engaged in Social Welfare activities,
working within the area of a Municipal Corporation or a
Council."
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
9. According to him, the applicant is duly qualified to be nominated as
Councillor as he had made a specific averment in his application, more
particularly in paragraph no.12, that the applicant is very well indulged in
business as well as social services since last twenty years and being a social
activist, he is connected with the Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation.
10. Mr. Gangakhedkar invited my attention to the testimony of the
witnesses, more particularly PW 9 and 10, and stated that applicant's presence at
the spot of the incident on the date of the incident is highly doubtful. It is only
PW 9, who has identified the applicant in the Court in the dock. The incident,
according to him, had taken place in the year 2008, whereas the evidence of PWs
9 and 10 was recorded in 2022. Thus, he submits that the dock identification is
highly doubtful. He, in the aforesaid background, has submitted that he has a
good chance to succeed in the appeal, and therefore, this is a fit case where a
stay of conviction is required to be granted.
11. Per Contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that the pleadings made in the
application failed to give any detail, and therefore, it is very difficult to say that
the applicant has made out any case for stay of conviction. She contended that
the provisions of the Act and Rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant need to be tested and weighed in the background of the pleadings
made. Her primary contention is regarding the pleadings in the application for a
stay of conviction.
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
12. She further contended that on the day of the incident, i.e. 7 th June
2018, when the informant bus driver was proceeding from Latur to Nanded from
the bus depot at 6:45 a.m. to ply the MSRTC bus bearing registration no. MH 20
D 8827 and reached Hingoli Gate, Nanded at 9:45 a.m., he noticed that the bus
of APSRTC bearing registration no. AP 28 Z 2316 was standing in front of his bus
on the road, and the driver, conductor and passengers therefrom were alighting
from the said bus and running away. In the meanwhile, the activists of the
political party, who were standing on road, started giving slogans and pelting
stones on the bus. Therefore, the informant had asked passengers from his bus to
get out of the bus, and while he, the bus conductor and passengers were
alighting from the bus, 20-25 activists of the political party, armed with stones,
sticks, iron rods, etc., with the unlawful assembly, damaged the ST bus and other
buses.
13. She submitted that not only the buses were damaged, but also police
van. The mob was led by the MLA and her son; and the applicant was also one of
the followers. She thus contended that the offence was of a serious nature and
moral turpitude. She then contended that, though there were passengers in the
bus and though the applicant was a follower of the political party, which was
formed with an intention to participate in democracy, the act of a person
belonging to the political party in damaging the public property is nothing but an
immoral act. She further submitted that it was a deliberate act of damaging
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
public property, and therefore, the application of the accused for a stay of
conviction is liable to be rejected.
14. With the help of both the counsels, I have gone through the
respective proceedings and have pondered over the arguments advanced at
length.
15. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that there is no specific
provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for staying of conviction, but the
recourse can be taken to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
parameters for suspension of sentence and stay of conviction are totally different.
It is only under exceptional cases the stay of conviction is required to be granted.
16. What is required to be seen while considering the application for
stay of conviction is whether the entire material is brought to the notice of the
Court and whether it is pointed out that what specific consequences would flow
if the stay of conviction is not granted. Even the material in support of it is also
required to be produced on record.
17. In the case in hand, though it is the contention of learned counsel
for the applicant that he wishes to participate in getting nominated as a member
of Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, the application reveals that no
specific pleading is made. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 6 of the application speak about
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
registration of F.I.R., consequently filing of bail application, and terming the
judgment impugned as illegal and improper. The grounds which are at Sr. Nos. 7
to 11, challenge the judgment of the trial court on various grounds. Paragraph
No.9 of the application states that the applicant has every hope to get success in
the criminal appeal and judgement is likely to be get quashed. Paragraph No.10
speaks about depositing the fine amount. Paragraph No.12 is the only pleading
which can be said to be relevant, and it is reproduced as under -
"12. Since the applicant is very well indulged in business as well as
social services since last 20 years. Being a social activist, he is likely
to be a co-opt member in the Nanded Waghala Municipal
Corporation. If the sentence is not stayed it will cause prejudice to
the applicant as well as society at large."
18. Thus what is stated is since the applicant has very well indulged in
business as well as in social services since last 20 years, being a social activist he
is likely to be elected as member in Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation. If
the sentence is not stayed it will cause prejudice to the applicant as well as
society at large.
19. If in the aforesaid background, arguments of the respective counsels
are tested, then it is crystal clear that absolutely no material is brought on record
to show that when the process of electing the member of the municipal
corporation is going to be held, what the dates are or how the present applicant
would be entitled to be nominated as a member. The pleadings are totally silent
regarding whether the applicant has any criminal antecedents.
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
20. At this stage, the fairness shown by Mr. Gangakhedkar is required to
be appreciated since he has stated that the two criminal cases are registered
against the applicant, but same are arising out of political rivalry.
21. I have already discussed that for deciding an application for a stay of
conviction, the case will have to be made out by the concerned party on the basis
of a pleading and by producing relevant material on record. In this case, the
same is not done.
22. Just because the sentence is suspended, it does not mean that the
applicant has a good case for a stay of conviction. As far as the merit of the case
is concerned, suffice it to say that since the foundational facts/pleadings are
missing in the application for stay of conviction, further discussion about the
merits of the case would not be relevant. Still, it can be said that PW 10 has
identified the applicant as a person who was involved in the commission of a
crime. The question whether dock identification is permissible or not can be
decided once the appeal is taken for final hearing.
23. Learned A.P.P. then invited my attention to the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
AIR Online 2024 BOM 1052, more particularly paragraph numbers 34 and 35,
which read as under-
915-APPLN-509-26.odt
"34. In the case of K.C.Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC
584, also the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the legal position,
therefore, is though the power to suspend an order of conviction,
apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of
the Code, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases.
Merely because the convicted person files an appeal challenging
the conviction, the court should not suspend the operation of the
order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at all aspects
including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in
abeyance.
35. In the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5
SCC 787, also, relied upon by learned Special Public Prosecutor
Shri Siddharth Dave, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the law
prohibits any person who has been convicted of any offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from
contesting the election and such person shall be disqualified for a
further period of six years since his release. In the face of such a
provision, the power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C. shall
be exercised only under exceptional circumstances."
24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by this
Court as well as the Apex Court, suffice it to say that no exceptional case is made
out and foundation in the form of pleadings is missing. In that view of the
matter, criminal application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, same is rejected.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD
