BALAJI VITTHALRAO KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:19346


                                                             906(B)-Cri-Appln-1640-2026.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1640 OF 2026
                                     IN APEAL/305/2026

                                     BALAJI VITTHALRAO KALE
                                              VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 .…
                 Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh Senior Advocate a/w Ms Shital Karle
                 i/b Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, Advocate for the Applicant
                 Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent – State
                                                 .…

                                    CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                          RESERVED ON : April 29, 2026
                      PRONOUNCED ON : April 30, 2026
                 ORDER :-


                 1.         This is an application for suspension of sentence and

                 grant of bail in consequence to conviction recorded by the learned

                 Special Court, Latur, dated 01.04.2026 passed in Special Case

                 (ACB) No.13 of 2014, convicting the applicant for the offence

                 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

                 Corruption Act.


                 2.         Learned Senior Counsel Shri Deshmukh submitted

                 that the applicant was working as an Assistant Registrar in the

                                                                                     1 of 5
                                   (( 2 ))    906(B)-Cri-Appln-1640-2026




Cooperative Department. That was apprehended, tried, and convicted

for the charge of demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/-.

However, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the applicant did

not accept the bribe amount, rather, it was accepted by co-accused

No. 2, who was said to be his subordinate. He contended that there is

nothing on record to show that the applicant and accused No. 2 had

any nexus with each other. He further submitted that in this case

there was no complaint, and the conviction has been recorded only on

the basis of the testimony of the shadow panch, the Investigating

Officer, and certain forensic evidence. According to him, the applicant

has a good case on merits. The sentence awarded by the learned trial

Court is two and a half years. He also pointed out that, after

convicting the applicant, the learned trial Court was pleased to

suspend the sentence till the expiry of the appeal period, i.e., up to

01.06.2026. He further submitted that the applicant is a differently

abled person, and a certificate to that effect has been placed on

record. For above reasons, relief of suspension of sentence and grant

of bail is urged.


3.           The learned APP strongly opposed the application on the

ground that, after a full-fledged trial, conviction has been recorded.

                                                                           2 of 5
                                    (( 3 ))     906(B)-Cri-Appln-1640-2026




The applicant had demanded bribe, and although accused No. 2

accepted it, he did so at the instance and on behalf of the applicant

(accused No. 1). The conviction was recorded following a full-fledged

trial,   supported   by   convincing   evidence,    including       recorded

conversations of the demand.For above reasons, relief is opposed by

placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another, (2023)

LiveLaw SC 389.


4.           Heard. Perused the papers.


5.           The present applicant was booked for commission of

offences under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the allegation of demanding

illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- for amending the bye-laws of the

society. Upon receipt of the complaint, the ACB authorities appear to

have planned and executed a trap and apprehended the accused.

Upon recording guilt, the trial court has awarded sentence of two and

a half years’ imprisonment and imposed fine, which has already been

paid. It is stated across the bar that during the trial, the applicant was

on bail. There is also a disability certificate indicating that the


                                                                             3 of 5
                                   (( 4 ))     906(B)-Cri-Appln-1640-2026




applicant is differently abled. Moreover, the appeal is of the year

2026, and there are no immediate prospects of the appeal being

heard in the near future. Furthermore, it appears that there was no

evidence of the complainant available for appreciation. Be that as it

may, as there are no immediate chances of the appeal being heard, in

light of the above discussion, the relief as sought deserves to be

granted. Hence the following order:-

                              ORDER

    (i)     Criminal Application stands allowed.

    (ii)    The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant Balaji
            Vitthalrao Kale by the learned Special Judge, Latur in
            Special Case (ACB) No.13 of 2014 dated 01.04.2026 stands
            suspended till final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal
            No.305 of 2026.

    (iii)   The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/-
            (Rs.Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the
            like amount.

    (iv)    The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity.

    (v)     The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial
            Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of
            the appeal, commencing from the date he tenders bail
            papers and thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for his
            subsequent appearances.


                                                                            4 of 5
                                      (( 5 ))    906(B)-Cri-Appln-1640-2026




      (vi)    In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the
              applicant to remain present before the trial Court, the trial
              Court to inform this Court about the same and in that
              eventuality, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an
              application for cancellation of the bail granted to the
              applicant.


      (vii)   Bail before the trial Court.



                                         [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE J. ]

SMS




                                                                              5 of 5