LALA RANJAN BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                   (1)
                                              Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2286 OF 2026
              IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 402 of 2024

                     LALA RANJAN BHOSALE
                             VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                   ….
         Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, Advocate for the applicant
          Mr. A. S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State
                                   ….

                   CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

            RESERVED ON                  : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
            PRONOUNCED ON                : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026

ORDER (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

1.    Heard rival submissions.

2.    By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused

No.1 in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2018, is seeking suspension of his

substantive sentence of life imprisonment, during the pendency of this

appeal and also his release on bail.


3.      As per the prosecution story, one Kunal Kishor Bhosale lodged

report at Loni Police Station on 18.05.2018 informing that on

17.05.2018 at about 8:00 pm, he had gone to village Pravaranagar

along with his cousin Pravin Bhosale.        They went to function of

"Jagaran-Gondhal" in front of one Snack Shop. His cousin deceased
                                  (2)
                                            Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt
Narendra and his niece injured Snehal @ Bhori Vilas Chavan had also

come to attend the said programme. There was an earlier incident of

quarrel between the accused No.1 and the deceased somewhere in the

month of March-April, 2018.



4.      On 17.05.2018 at about 8.15 pm, injured Snehal asked the

deceased to go to home. At about 8.20 pm, the deceased and injured

Snehal were passing from the front side of house of the

applicant/accused No.1. Applicant/accused No.1 hurled abuses and

threatened the deceased. The deceased then called the informant.

The informant and his cousin Pravin immediately went towards the

house of accused No.1 i.e. present applicant. Applicant/accused was

saying that, he would kill the deceased and hurled abuses.          The

informant reached there. He saw that present applicant/accused No.1

was armed with knife. He inflicted blow of knife in the abdomen of

deceased. He took out the said knife and inflicted it's blow on the

right hand of Snehal, cutting her vein. Due to the stab by knife, the

intestine of deceased protruded out. Applicant fled away from the

spot.    Both the injured were taken to PMT Hospital, Loni. However,

the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 22.05.2018.



5.      The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there are

material contradictions between the versions of P.W.1- informant and

P.W.3 Snehal i.e. the injured in this case. According to Snehal, the
                                    (3)
                                             Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt
applicant/accused inflicted knife injury on the abdomen of the

deceased, but it was a single injury. She stated that, though she again

went to the spot of incident with her grandmother, but by that time,

the informant was not there and he arrived after they reached the spot

secondly.



6.      Further, there was quarrel between the applicant and the

deceased prior to the incident of stabbing, and therefore, there may be

possibility of converting the offence of murder into lesser one.

According to her, the applicant is behind the bars for about eight

years, as he was arrested on 23.05.2018. The cross-examination of

P.W.1 also suggests that he might not be there at the time of actual

incident.



7.    On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly supported the

conviction of the applicant/accused and submitted that, the learned

Trial Judge after considering the entire material on record, has

convicted him, and therefore, now there is no case made out by the

applicant for his release on bail. According to him, this is a second

application of the applicant and the first one was in fact withdrawn by

him. Thus, there is no change of circumstances. As such, he prayed

for dismissal of the application.


8.    Admittedly, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the present
                                   (4)
                                             Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. However,

on going through the material on record and the impugned judgment,

it appears that there are material contradictions in the versions of eye

witnesses, namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The injured Snehal is stating

that at the time of incident P.W.1 i.e. the informant was not there at

all.   On the contrary, P.W. 2 has admitted that the deceased had

already fallen down when he reached to the spot of the incident.

Further, the evidence of P.W.1 definitely suggests that he was not

having personal knowledge of the incident. Apart from that, it is a

case of single blow and there was quarrel between the deceased and

the accused prior to the incident. The accused is already behind the

bars for almost eight years. Therefore, considering the possibility of

scaling down of the offence and that the appeal is not likely to be

heard in near future, we are of the opinion that the applicant/accused

can be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. In view of

the same, we pass the following order :-

                         ORDER

       (A)   The application is allowed.

       (B)   The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed
             upon the applicant/accused Lala Ranjan Bhosale in
             Sessions Case No. 39 of 2018 under judgment and order
             dated 22.02.2024 passes by the learned Additional
             Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District Ahilynagar is hereby
                                    (5)
                                               Cri. Appln. No. 2286-2026.odt
       suspended during the pendency of this appeal.


(C)    The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.
       50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or more
       sureties in the like amount, if not required in any other case.


(D)    The application is accordingly disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)           (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                 JUDGE


YSK/