[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajesh Shankar Rajiwade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-AS:13031-DB 1 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2355 OF 2024
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION N.2533 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1017 OF 2022
Rajesh Shankar Rajiwade Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
_______
Mr.Anush Shetty i/by Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary for Applicant.
Ms.Geeta P.Mulekar,APP, for Respondent State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 17th March 2026
P.C.
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the Applicant-accused
praying that the conditions of bail be modified, as imposed by this Court by order
dated 11th December 2023, passed on Interim Application No.2533 of 2022,
whereby the said application of the Applicant for suspension of sentence of grant of
bail was allowed in terms of the following order :
"1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the
pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 2022.
2. The applicant is convicted vide judgment and order dated 23 rd December
2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon District Raigad in
Sessions Case No. 48 of 2019, for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.03.17 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was killed by accused by
16:17:05 +0530
strangulating him. There is no eye witness to the incident. Complaint was lodged
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:50:25 :::
2 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
by son of the deceased. During the course of investigation, statements of two
witnesses were recorded. According to them, the applicant had made extra judicial
confession admitting that he has killed the deceased.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no strong evidence
to convict the applicant in the crime. Case is based on the evidence of two
witnesses viz. PW-2 and PW-3 to whom, the applicant had made extra judicial
confession. It is submitted that the version of these two witnesses is doubtful. They
did not approach the police on confession being made by the applicant. The FIR is
lodged by son of the deceased. There is no other evidence to corroborate the
version of these two witnesses. Applicant is in custody for a period about five
years.
5. Learned APP submitted that trial Court has accepted the evidence of PW-2
and PW-3. Although, both these witnesses have deposed that the
applicant/appellant had confessed to them about killing the deceased. The
witnesses were cross-examined by the defence but could not succeed in
demolishing their evidence. The trial Court has referred to the fact that there was
blood stained on the t-shirt of the accused which is considered as one of the
circumstance to show the involvement of the applicant. The medical evidence
discloses that there was blood oozing from nose and mouth of the accused. Hence,
the application for suspension of sentence may be rejected.
6. We have perused the paper-book and the evidence of the witnesses.
Undisputedly there is no eye witness to the incident. Case is based on
circumstantial evidence. Motive for committing crime is not very clear.
Prosecution relying upon evidence of PW No.2 and PW No.3. The said witness
referred to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the applicant. It is settled
law that the such evidence is weak in nature. It is pertinent to note that both these
witnesses had not approached the police immediately after the purported
confession being made to them. FIR is lodged by son of the deceased. It is not
clear as to when statement of these two witnesses were recorded. It is also pertinent
to note that the report regarding blood group of the deceased was inconclusive.
The applicant is in custody for five years. Considering these circumstances, case for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out.
ORDER
(i) Interim Application No. 2533 of 2022 is allowed.
(ii) Substantive sentence imposed vide judgment and order dated 23 rd December
2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon in Sessions Case No.
48 of 2019 is suspended and the applicant is 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 report concerned Police station once in a three months on
first Saturday of the month between 11:00 am to 02:00 p.m. till further orders.
(iv) Application stands disposed off."
2. The Applicant has contended that he was arrested on 28 th April 2019 in
connection with the case in question and at the conclusion of trial, he was
M.S.Thatte
3 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
convicted on 23rd December 2021 by the judgment and and order passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mangaon, in Sessions Case No.48 of
2019 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and since then the Applicant is in
custody. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that this Court in the Interim
Application No.2533 of 2022 although has suspended the sentence and granted
bail to the Applicant, however, as the Applicant could not fulfill the conditions due
to poverty and estranged relations with relatives, the Applicant continues to remain
in jail as he is not in a position to offer one or more sureties as directed. It is hence
his prayer that he may be enlarged on temporary bail by furnishing personal bond
as directed.
3. Raising such contention, learned counsel for the Applicant has placed
reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Re : Policy Strategy for Grant of
Bail1 and contended that the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for grant
of bail in cases where the under trial or the convict is not in a position to furnish
sureties due to incarceration. The relevant extract of the Supreme Court decision
reads thus :
"With a view to ameliorate the problems a number of directions are sought. We
have examined the directions which we reproduce hereinafter with certain
modifications :
"1) The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be
required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the
Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent
would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any
other software which is being used by the Prison Department.
2) If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of
bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary,
DLSA who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact
with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.
1Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.04/2021, dated 31-1-2023
M.S.Thatte
4 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
3) NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so
that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the Prison
Department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an
automatic email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.
4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic condition of the
accused, may take help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to
prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be
placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of
bail/surety.
5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond
or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider
granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish
bail bond or sureties.
6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant
bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the
conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.
7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/ convict is the
insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not
impose the condition of local surety."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The Applicant has also contended that he undertakes to abide by the
other conditions imposed by this Court in the said order dated 11 th December
2023 in Interim Application No.2533 of 2022 (supra).
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned
APP, we are of the opinion that the prayer, as made in the Interim Application, is
required to be granted.
6. We may also refer to a recent order passed by this Court in Satish
Mahipal Walmiki @ Raja Arun Shettiyar @ Pahilwan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra2. In similar circumstances, the prayer of the Applicant therein was to
the effect that he be released on bail only on executing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- as
he was unable to furnish sureties, as ordered. This Court allowed the said Interim
2I.A.No.1889/2023, dated 10-3-2026
M.S.Thatte
5 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
Application referring the observations of the decision of Supreme Court in
Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari Vs. State of Maharashtra 3. The relevant extract
of the said order is required to be noted, which reads thus :
"4. In our opinion, considering the facts of the case as also what has been noted
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 17 January, 2023 while
suspending the sentence and allowing the Bail application, the condition directing
the appellant/applicant to furnish one or more sureties in the like amount needs to
be relaxed and the appellant/applicant needs to be released on bail only on
executing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/-.
5. We may also observe that in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in
Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari Vs. The State of Maharashtra, wherein the
petitioner was deprived of the benefit of a bail order, as the petitioner was unable
to furnish local surety, the following observations were made :
4. The justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the
plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local
surety. For their incapacity to meet the bail terms, the applicant
continues to languish in jail notwithstanding the bail order passed in
his favour as far back as on 03.05.2024.
.......
6. It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to
secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish local
surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution for the person, who continues to be detained
despite a bail order in his favour.
7. Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it
appropriate to say that the petitioner be released on bail on his
personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure
compliance with this Court's bail order dated 03.05.2024. It is
ordered accordingly."
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to allow the present
Interim Application in terms of the following order :
ORDER
(i) Interim Application No.2355 of 2024 stands allowed;
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed on the Applicant vide judgment and
order dated 23rd December 2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
3Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.3363/2024, dated 18.9.2024
M.S.Thatte
6 of 6 9.IA.2355.2024.DOC
Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad in Sessions Case No.48 of 2019, as suspended by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11th December 2023 in Interim
Application No.2533 of 2022, on the condition that the Applicant being directed to
be released on bail on execution of P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- shall apply as
the only condition. The condition to furnish one or two sureties in the like amount,
stands deleted;
(iii) Accordingly the Applicant shall be released on bail on the Applicant
executing P.R bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-;
(iv) Further, the order dated 11th December 2023 passed in Interim
Application No.2533 of 2022 shall stand modified to a further extent that the
Applicant is directed to report to the Sessions Court, Mangaon, District Raigad on
every first Monday of the month commencing from April-2026;
(v) In the event of two consecutive failures on the Part of applicant to report
the Sessions Court, Mangaon, as directed in clause (iv) above, the Applicant shall be
taken into custody and shall not be entitled to bail anytime in future till the disposal of
the Appeal;
(vi) Interim Application is disposed of in the above terms.
8. This order be immediately forwarded to the concerned Superintendent
of Jail by the Registry, as also the learned APP shall also forward this order to the
concerned authorities.
9. List the Appeal on 21st April 2026 by which time the paper books etc.
be made ready by the office.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
