Sandip @ John Khandu Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 833 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sandip @ John Khandu Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:3595                                                                   79-IA-4605-2025.DOC




                                                                                                    Shivgan


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4605 OF 2025
                                                     IN
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1358 OF 2024

                    Sandip @ John Khandu Pawar                                      ...Appellant/
                                                                                    Applicant
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra                                            ...Respondent


                    Mr. Akshay Bankapur, for the Appellant/Applicant.
                    Mr. A.S.Gawai, APP for the Respondent-State.


                                                  CORAM:         R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                  DATED:         23rd JANUARY, 2026.
                    PC:-


                    1.      This is an Application for enlargement on bail in connection
                    with the Judgment and Order dated 28 th November 2024 passed in
                    Sessions Case No. 158 of 2012 whereby the Applicant came to be
                    convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
                    Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and sentenced to suffer rigorous
                    imprisonment for 4 years with pay fine of Rs.25,000/-.

                    2.      Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that though this
                    is second Bail Application, such liberty was granted by this Court.
                    It is his further submission that on the basis of evidence on record,
                    it cannot be held that the offence has been proved against the
                    Applicant beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, he drew



                                                            Page 1 of 3
                                                       rd
                                                     23 January, 2026.



                   ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026                           ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:31:02 :::
                                                              79-IA-4605-2025.DOC




 attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.1, i.e., Injured, who
 admitted in cross-examination that the vehicle in which the
 Applicant and the Injured were proceeding, met with an accident.
 Though he denies submission that the injury in question caused to
 his neck had occurred while he was coming out of the damaged
 car, there is however, evidence of the Medical Officer who says that
 such injury is possible while doing so. Apart from this, it is his
 submission that though allegations were made against in all 4
 accused, the Informant has retracted from the said allegations
 before the Trial Court. Thus, his testimony is not believable. It is
 submitted that the Applicant is in jail for last 1 year and 7 months
 out of 4 years of imprisonment. Hence, he be enlarged on bail.

 3.      Learned APP opposed the Bail Application, firstly, on the
 ground that there are criminal antecedents against the Applicant
 and if he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to commit further crimes.
 Even on merits, it is his submission that evidence on record more
 particularly, evidence of the Injured coupled with the testimony of
 P.W. 6, eye witness, is sufficient to convict the Applicant.

 4.      Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that the Injured
 initially leveled allegations against in all 4 persons. He however,
 retracted from the allegations made against Accused Nos.2 to 4. He
 accepts that he had suspected illicit relationship between his wife
 and the present Applicant. Later on, however, he found that there
 was no such relationship between them. It is pertinent to note that
 however, at the time of occurrence of the incident, he had the said
 suspicion. In the light of these facts, when there is evidence to
 show that the injuries caused to the Injured is possible while



                                      Page 2 of 3
                                 rd
                               23 January, 2026.



::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2026                        ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 23:31:02 :::
                                                               79-IA-4605-2025.DOC




 coming out of the damaged car in an accident, there is chance of
 success in the Appeal for the Applicant herein. He has already
 undergone 1 year and 7 months of imprisonment out of 5 years .

 5.        Though there are criminal antecedents against the Applicant,
 in view of the fair chance for the Applicant to succeed in the
 Appeal, this is not the case for rejection of his Application. There is
 no likelihood of Appeal to be heard in short period of time. In that
 case, the Appeal would become infructuous.

 6.        Hence, the Interim Application is allowed. Hence, the
 following order:

                                         ORDER

(i) Applicant is enlarged on bail in connection with Sessions Case No.158 of 2012 in C.R.No. I-272 of 2010 on furnishing P. R. bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees) with one local surely in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police Station concerned once in three months till the decision of the Appeal;

(iii) Interim Application stands disposed of.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.) {

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date:

2026.01.23 18:31:25 +0530

rd 23 January, 2026.