Bombay High Court

RAJENDRA DAMODAR RUPNAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court suspended the appellant’s life sentence pending appeal and granted bail on a bond, finding the circumstances warranted relief.

Summary

The appellant, Rajendra Damodar Rupnawar, was convicted in 2018 of murder (IPC 302) and several other offences and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving nine years, he filed an interim application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail, arguing that a co‑convict, Appa Damodar Rupnawar, had been granted bail after ten years on the ground of parity. The State opposed the application but did not dispute the period of incarceration. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., held that the long period of imprisonment and the lack of a near‑term hearing justified suspension of the sentence pending appeal. Consequently, the Court ordered the sentence to be suspended, granted bail on a Rs 50,000 bond with sureties, and directed the appellant to cooperate for an early hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s sentence should be suspended and bail granted on the basis of long incarceration and parity with a co‑convict.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 506

Subjects

life imprisonment
suspension of sentence
bail
parity principle
long incarceration
criminal appeal
murder
IPC
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

11-IA-266-2026.doc

Digitally signed
by HARISH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.10.08
19:26:53 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 266 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2022

Rajendra Damodar Rupnawar ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

——————
Ms. Vrushali Maindad a/w Gayatri Kulkarni for the Applicant.
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : October 08, 2026.

P. C. :

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2018, by

Judgment and Order dated 1st December, 2018, thereby convicting and

sentencing the Applicant as follows:

1] All the accused are hereby convicted of the ofence PUS
302 rws 149 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 235 (2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and are sentenced to sufer Life
Imprisonment and to pay ine at Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
which each of them shall have to undergo RI for three months.

2] All the accused are hereby convicted of the ofences PUS
143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506 rws 149 of the IPC and an
ofence U/s.5 PUS 25 of Arms Act under Section 235 (2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 but no separate sentence is inlicted in

Harish 1 of 4
11-IA-266-2026.doc

respect of the same.

2A] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

3] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

4] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..

5] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

6] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

7] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

8] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

9] ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as can be seen from the

impugned Judgment, is as under. The relevant paragraphs from the

same are reproduced below.

“2] The alleged ofences have taken place on 04/11/2016 at about
7.30 am in front of the house of the deceased Ashok at Hanumanwadi
(Kurbavi), Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur.

3] The case of the prosecution is that prior to the date of the incident,
the accused demanded sale of 11 Ares of land of the deceased Ashok
to them, which Ashok refused. Accused therefore nurtured grudge
against Ashok. On 04/11/2016 at about 7.30 a.m. in the Courtyard,
while Suvarna, wife of the deceased Ashok was warming water on the
earthen furnace and while the deceased Ashok had come outside the
house to milk the cow the accused No.1 Sanjay Rupnawar (for short
A1..A2 and so on ) and A2 Sachin Rupnawar armed with sickle, A4
Rajendra Rupnawar, A5 Appa Rupnawar armed with Swords, A3 Dada
Rupnawar and Juvenile in Conlict with Law (JICWL) Santosh
Rupnawar armed with sticks, and JICWL Kuldeep Rupnawar holding
stones arrived there. All the accused assaulted on head, back, thigh
and both hands of Ashok. Although Suvarna attempted to rescue her
husband A6 Fulabai, A7 Latabai, A8 Ashabai, and A9 Vandanabai
dragged her and also assaulted by ist and kick blows. People
gathered on hearing hullabaloo. That time A1 Sanjay Rupnawar and

Harish 2 of 4
11-IA-266-2026.doc

A5 Appa Rupnawar brandished Sickle and Sword. They threatened to
amputate hand and legs like Ashok in case anybody would give
evidence against the accused. It is only thereafter the accused went in
the ield. Sarjerao Rupnawar (PW1), Prakash Rupnawar (PW5), his
wife Savita and son Amit Rupnawar came at the scene of occurrence.
Amit Rupnawar and Sarjerao brought Omni car on rent and took
Ashok for treatment at Inamdar Hospital, Akluj. She was informed by
her cousin Dada Ramchandra Rupnawar that Ashok breathed his last
during treatment. Thereafter, she approached Natepute police station
to report the occurrence against the accused. However she was
referred to Akluj police station where she lodged FIR Exh.55. Akluj
police station referred FIR to Natepute police station where crime
bearing No.262/2016 came to be registered against the accused in
respect of supra ofences.”

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that, the

co-accused, Appa Damodar Rupnawar, to whom the role of assault by a

sword has been attributed, has been released on bail by this Court after

suspending his sentence on the ground of long incarceration. She

further submits that, the role attributed to the Applicant/Appellant is

similar to the role attributed to the said co-convict, Appa. She submits

that on the ground of parity, the application be allowed.

4. The learned APP opposes the application. However, she submits

that there is no dispute that, the Applicant has been behind bars for a

period of nine (9) years.

5. Perusal of the order dated 14 th October, 2025 passed by this

Court in Interim Application No. 2913 of 2025 iled in this Appeal goes

to show that, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Saudan Singh v. The State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2022

Harish 3 of 4
11-IA-266-2026.doc

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021, dated 25 th February, 2022],

this Court, by considering that the co-convict Appa was behind bars for

almost ten (10) years, allowed the application and granted bail. The

Applicant herein has completed nine (9) years of imprisonment. There is

no possibility that the Appeal will be heard inally in the near future.

Thus, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i. Application is allowed.

ii. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the Trial Court by the Judgment and order dated 1 st
December, 2018 convicting the Applicant is suspended
during the pendency of the Appeal.

iii. The Applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing P.R.
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more
sureties in the like amount.

iv. The Applicant shall furnish his contact details, telephone
numbers to the trial Court.

v. The Applicant/Appellant shall co-operate with this Court
for early hearing of the Appeal.

vi. Bail before the Trial Court.

6. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…