Bombay High Court
Akshay Vishnu ShigvanversusThe State of Maharashtra and Anr
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court suspended the applicant's sentence pending the appeal, granting bail on conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Akshay Vishnu Shigvan, was convicted along with two co‑accused for murder, robbery and criminal conspiracy and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 120‑B of the IPC. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of his sentence on the ground of parity, arguing that the High Court had already suspended the sentence of co‑convict Abhijit Sudhakar Jadhav on similar evidential facts. The prosecution contended that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last‑seen testimony of the deceased’s wife and the recovery of the deceased’s gold chain by the applicant. The Court examined whether the principle of parity justified extending the suspension to the applicant and whether bail could be granted pending the appeal. Finding that the evidential circumstances were identical for all three convicts and that the applicant had already spent over eight years in custody, the Court allowed the application, suspended the substantive sentence, and ordered his release on bail with conditions. The order also directed the applicant to report monthly to the police station and to provide his residential details.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of his sentence pending appeal on the ground of parity with a co‑convict whose sentence was suspended.
- Whether bail can be granted to the applicant while the appeal is pending.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 235(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 302, 397
Subjects
- sentence suspension
- parity principle
- circumstantial evidence
- bail
- criminal appeal
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
17-CRIA-404-2026.doc
Digitally signed
by HARISH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date: CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
2026.09.10
18:41:21 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2026
Akshay Vishnu Shigvan ...Applicant.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Satyajeet Anil Rajeshirke a/w Gautam R. Kulkarni, Shubham R. Vasekar &
Sainath Z. Patil for the Applicant.
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Bharat Govind Dhumal P.I. Mandangad Police Station.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 10, 2026.
P. C. :
1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Tal- Khed, District Ratnagiri in
Sessions Case No. 4 of 2018 by Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025,
thereby convicting and sentencing the Applicant as follows:
1. Accused No.1 Abhijit Sudhakar Jadhav, No.2 Narendra
Santosh Salvi and No.3 Akshay Vishnu Shigvan are convicted of the
ofences punishable under Section 302, 397,201, 120-B rws 34 of the
Indian Penal Code vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. The accused No.1 to 3 shall undergo life imprisonment for the
ofence committed u/s 302, 201 and 120-B r.w.s.34 of IPC and ine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each. They shall sufer simple
Harish 1 of 4
17-CRIA-404-2026.doc
imprisonment for three months in default of ine.
3. The accused No.1 to 3 shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment
for seven years for the ofence committed u/s 397 r.w.s.34 of IPC and
ine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each. They shall sufer
simple imprisonment for three months in default of ine.
4. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
5. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
6. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
7. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
8. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
9. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
10. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant
that, all three (3) accused persons, including the Applicant, were
chargesheeted and tried before the learned Trial Court, and they all
came to be convicted by the impugned Judgment. The case is based on
circumstantial evidence. This Court, by order dated 14.07.2026,
suspended the sentence of the co-convict No. 1-Abhijit Sudhakar
Jadhav, by considering the evidence on record. The Applicant stands on
the same footing, and the ground of parity is available to him. The
Applicant/Appellant is behind bars for a period of more than eight (8)
years. It is submitted that the Application be allowed.
3. It is submitted by the learned APP that the case is primarily based
on the evidence of PW-6-the wife of the deceased, who had seen the
deceased lastly with the Applicant and the co-convicts. The gold chain of
Harish 2 of 4
17-CRIA-404-2026.doc
the deceased was discovered/recovered at the instance of the
Applicant. She submits that this Court has suspended the sentence of
the co-convict No. 1- Abhijit Sudhakar Jadhav. She fairly submits that the
evidence on the point of last seen is common against all the convicts.
4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 30.10.2017, the convicts
approached the deceased Rajaram, who was driving the three-wheeler,
with a request to ferry the passengers who were waiting at village
Tondali, and requested him to accompany them. Later on, the dead body
of said Rajaram was found. The matter was reported to the police. The
C.R. No. 47 of 2017 came to be registered with Mandangad Police
Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 201 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. One of the
circumstances is that the deceased accompanied the convicts. It is not in
dispute that the evidence of last seen is against all the convicts. Since
this Court has considered the evidence on record and suspended the
sentence of the co-convict No. 1- Abhijit Sudhakar Jadhav, the ground of
parity would be available to the Applicant. The additional circumstance
against the Applicant is discovery/recovery of the gold chain of the
deceased. The Applicant is behind bars for a period of eight (8) years.
The Appeal is of the year 2026 and is not likely to be heard inally in the
near future.
Harish 3 of 4
17-CRIA-404-2026.doc
6. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following
order:
ORDER
a) The Application is allowed.
b) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Tal- Khed, District
Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2018 by Judgment and
Order dated 30.10.2025 on the Applicant/Appellant, is
suspended during pendency of the Appeal.
c) Applicant - Akshay Vishnu Shigvan be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
d) The Applicant/Appellant, before to his release, shall
provide details of his residential address and
mobile/landline contact numbers to the jail authorities
which shall be forwarded to the concerned Police Station.
e) The Applicant/Appellant shall report to the concerned
police station, i.e., Mandangad Police Station, once a
month, on the last day of month, between 10:00 a.m. and
2:00 p.m., until further orders.
f) The Applicant/Appellant shall co-operate with this Court
for early hearing of the Appeal.
g) Bail before the Trial Court.
7. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 4 of 4
Checking your session…