[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nilesh Ramkrishna Mhatre And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 16 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:1850-DB
IA-4478-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4478 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2022
1. Nilesh Ramkrishna Mhatre }
Aged : 42 years, Occ.: Service
2. Malti Ramkrishna Mhatre }
Aged : 60 years, Occ.: Housewife }
Both residing at : Kasarbhat, }
Post Aajiwali, Taluka : Pen, }
District : Raigad. } ...Applicants
Digitally
signed by
} (Original Accused Nos.1 & 3)
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.01.16
18:33:30
+0530
V/s.
1. The State Of Maharashtra }
At the instance of New Panvel }
Police Station }
2. Hiraman Chahaya Tawari }
Age : 70 years }
Residing at : Rawe, Post Rawe }
Taluka : Pen, District : Raigad. } Respondents
-------------------
Mr. Rahul S.Arote, for the Applicants/Appellants.
Ms. Sangita Phad, APP, for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare for Respondent No. 2 (through VC).
--------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
varsha 1 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 23:43:02 :::
IA-4478-2025.doc
DATE : 16th JANUARY 2026.
ORDER:
(PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J).
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and bail
filed by the Applicants, pending the appeal, who have been convicted
for the offence punishable under section 302, 304B, 498A with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The present bail application has been filed primarily on the
ground that the applicants have undergone 10 years of actual
imprisonment and it is urged that considering the judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Sudhan Singh versus State of
Uttar Pradesh',1 the applicants deserve to be released on bail.
3. The Applicants herein are the original accused who were
arrested on 16 December 2015. After the conclusion of the trial, the
Sessions Court Panvel vide order dated 28 September 2022, convicted
the Applicants for the offences punishable under section 302, 304B,
498A with 34 of the IPC. The Applicants against the order of
conviction, have filed Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No 1148
of 2022, which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 20 March
2023 and is pending before this Court for hearing and final disposal.
1 (2022) SC online SC 697
varsha 2 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
4. The first application for bail and suspension of sentence
filed by the Applicant No 2, along with the Appeal was permitted to be
withdrawn and liberty was granted by this Court ( Coram: A.S.
Gadkari and Prakash Naik JJ ), that if the appeal is not taken up for
hearing within a period of one year, then the applicant was granted
liberty to file fresh bail application.
5. The Applicant no. 2 thereafter had filed an application for
suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant on bail during the
pendency of the appeal which came to be rejected by this Court on
merits ( Coram: A. S . Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale JJ ), vide order
dated 20 August 2024.
6. The Applicants thereafter preferred another bail
application, however the same was not pressed, but a request was
made to list the appeal for final hearing on the ground that the
applicants are in custody for more than nine and half years. The
Application was allowed to be withdrawn and the matter was directed
to be listed on the weekly final hearing board in the week commencing
from 28th of July 2025. Till date, the appeal could not be heard.
7. The Applicants have filed application for bail on the ground
that the Applicants have completed 10 years of actual imprisonment
varsha 3 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
and therefore in the view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of ' Sudan Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh',
(supra) the applicants deserve to be released on bail.
8. Apart from the judgement of 'Sudhan Singh versus state of
Uttar Pradesh', (supra) the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants has also
relied upon the following judgements.
a. 'Ranjeet Raut vs. State of GNCT Delhi',2.
b. 'Mohammed Shereef vs. State of Kerala',3
c. 'Suleman vs. State of Uttar Pradesh',4
d. 'Vinod Ramniklal Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra',5
e. 'Omprakash Sahni vs. JaiShankar Chaudhary & Anr.
Etc.',6
9. Per contra the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted that
earlier the bail applications have been rejected on merits and there
being no change of circumstances, the bail application cannot be
entertained and deserves to be rejected.
10. The Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the
judgement of 'Preet Pal Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh'.7
2 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 22968 of 2020
3 Criminal Appeal No. 1733 of 2024.
4 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 714.
5 Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2022.
6 (2023) Live Law (SC) 389.
7 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3995.
varsha 4 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
11. We have gone through the application for bail and the
judgement cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and the Ld. APP.
12. The ruling of the Apex court relied upon by the Ld. Counsel
for the Applicant in the case of 'Sudan Singh versus State of Uttar
Pradesh', (supra) is very clear where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed in para 9 and 10 as under
" 9. The second category of cases can be one where the
person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In
these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there
are any extenuating circumstances against him.
"10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt
the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme
Court to be troubled with such matters".
13. The Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms observed
that where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence,
then the bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating
circumstances against him.
14. The Ld. APP has not pointed out any extenuating
circumstance which can persuade this court to take a diametrical view
of not releasing the applicants on bail despite having undergone 10
years of actual imprisonment.
15. The Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the
varsha 5 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
judgement of 'Preet Pal Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh' (supra)
and has invited the attention of this court to following paragraphs of
the said judgement which is reproduced here in below.
"24. The Short question that arises for consideration in
this appeal is , whether the High Court was justified in
directing release of the Respondent No 2 on bail , during
the pendency of his appeal before the High Court.
25.....
26....
"27. As the discretion under Section 389(1) is to be
exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to
consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed,
giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the
conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable
delay in disposal of the appeal, as held by this Court in
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291 (AIR
1977 SC 2147) and Babu Singh and Ors. V. State of U.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 579 (AIR 1978 SC 527).
28....
29....
30.....
31....
32....
33....
34.....
varsha 6 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
35. In Ajay Kumar Sharma three-Judge Bench of this
Court relied on Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (supra) and set
aside order of bail granted by the High Court holding, that
it was well settled that even though detailed examination
of the merits of the case may not be required by the courts
while considering an application for bail, at the same time
exercise of discretion has to be based on well settled
principles and in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course.
36. There is a difference between grant of bail under
Section 439 of the Cr. PC in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr. PC and
grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case there may
be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental
postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be
liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the
case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an
exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Sing v. State of
U.P. and Anr. (supra). However, in case of post conviction
bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a
finding of guilt and the question of presumption of
innocence does not arise.
Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an
exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.
Rather, the Court considering an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie
merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There
should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail,
notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of
sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be
recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section
389(1) of the Cr. P.C."
16. The Ld. APP has also invited the attention of this court to
varsha 7 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ' Om
Prakash Sagar Vasi Jai Shankar Chaudhary' (supra) and referred to
para 33 and 34 of the said judgement which is reproduced herein
below ".
" 33 Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to
see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution
and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in
which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of
acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be
in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to
say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to
have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not
be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the
conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for
decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the
exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances
of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something
palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very
apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of
which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction
that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate
Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of
Section 389 of the Cr. PC and try to pick up few lacunas or
loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such
would not be a correct approach.
"34. In the case on hand, what the High Court has done is
something impermissible. High Court has gone into the
issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some
over-writings in the First Information Report etc. All these
aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final
varsha 8 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts. Upon cursory
scanning of the evidence on record, we are unable to agree
with the contentions coming from the learned Senior
Counsel for the convicts that, either there is absolutely no
case against the convicts or that the evidence against them
is so weak and feeble in nature, that, ultimately in all
probabilities the proceedings would terminate in their
favour. For the very same reason we are unable to accept
the contention coming from the convicts through their
learned Senior Counsel that, it would be meaningless,
improper and unjust to keep them behind the bars for a
pretty long time till they are found not to be guilty of the
charges.
17. There cannot be any doubt about the proposition of law
laid down with respect to the rulings relied upon by the Ld. APP.
However, the facts of the cases referred hereinabove by the Ld. APP are
different and even the facts are not such where the Appellants have
undergone 10 years of actual imprisonment and therefore these
judgments will be of no avail to the Ld. APP.
18. In view of the above, considering the fact that the
Appellants have undergone a period of 10 years of actual
imprisonment and there are no extenuating circumstances pointed out,
this court relying upon the observations made in the case ' Sudan Singh
versus State of Uttar Pradesh', (supra), is inclined to release the
applicants on bail and suspend the sentence on the following terms
varsha 9 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
and conditions.
ORDER
i. Interim Application No 4478/2025 is allowed
and disposed of;
ii. During the pendency of the Criminal Appeal
No 1148/2022, the sentence of imprisonment imposed
vide judgment and order dated 28.9.2022 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad in
Sessions Case No. 198 of 2019 is suspended and the
applicants are directed to be released on bail on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one
or more sureties in the like amount;
iii. The applicant shall attend New Panvel Police
Station once in two months on first Monday of the
month between 11:00a.m. to 1:00p.m till final
disposal of the appeal.
iv. The Applicants shall not leave the country
without prior permission of this court.
v. The Applicant shall deposit the passport, if any
with the New Panvel Police station.
varsha 10 of 11
IA-4478-2025.doc
19. Interim Application is disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE,J)
varsha 11 of 11
