Bombay High Court

SANDEEP NAMDEO KHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The sentence was suspended till the final hearing and disposal of the appeal, and the applicants were released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered applications by Sandeep Namdeo Khade and Kailas Baburao Sonawane seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, for conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC in a 2017 case. The applicants argued they were falsely implicated, citing an old family dispute, simple injuries to the victim, and the fact that they had earlier obtained anticipatory bail. The State opposed, emphasizing the use of an iron rod, the apparent intent, and eyewitness testimony. The Court held that the nature of the injury is not determinative for a Section 307 offence and, given the pending appeal and the circumstances, granted suspension of the sentence and bail. The applicants were released on a personal bond with conditions and directed to appear before the trial court periodically.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence imposed for an offence under Section 307 IPC should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal
Whether the nature and severity of the victim's injuries are relevant to the grant of suspension in a Section 307 case
Whether the existence of an old family dispute and prior anticipatory bail justify suspension of the sentence

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 34

Subjects

suspension of sentence
anticipatory bail
Section 307 IPC
criminal appeal
bail conditions
injury nature
deadly weapon

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38433

6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3240 OF 2026
IN APEAL/645/2026

SANDEEP NAMDEO KHADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3311 OF 2026
IN APEAL/645/2026

KAILAS BABURAO SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.…
Mr. Kishor D. Khade, Advocate for Applicants
Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent - State
.…

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

RESERVED ON : August 24, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : August 25, 2026
O R D E R :-

1. The present applicants have moved this Court for

suspension of sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Beed dated 27.07.2026 in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2017

convicting both the applicants for the offence under Section 307

read with 34 of I.P.C.

1 of 5
(( 2 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026

2. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that the

applicant in Criminal Application No. 3240 of 2026 is accused No. 1,

whereas the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3311 of 2026 is

arrayed as accused No. 2. It is submitted that both the applicants have

been falsely implicated. There are allegations that, in view of a

previous family dispute, the informant was assaulted with an iron

rod. However, it is pointed out that the alleged assault was on the left

leg, back, knee, right leg, and near the shoulder of the left hand of the

informant. It is further pointed out that the injury certificate shows

that the injuries suffered by the informant are simple in nature. Both

the applicants were beneficiaries of anticipatory bail. Now, after their

conviction, they have preferred appeals. However, since the appeal is

of the year 2026, it is likely to take a considerable period for its final

adjudication. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel has

urged that the sentence be suspended and the applicants be released

on bail.

3. The learned APP strongly opposed the applications on the

ground that, having regard to the nature of the allegations, i.e., the

2 of 5
(( 3 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026

use of an iron rod, the intention of the accused, and the manner of

assault from behind, the intention of the accused was explicit. There

was use of a deadly weapon, i.e., an iron rod. There was also an

eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, considering the nature of

allegations, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused.

Hence, she opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

4. Heard. Perused the papers. Admittedly, the present

applications for suspension of sentence arise out of the judgment and

order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed, in

Sessions Case No. 55 of 2017, whereby the applicants have been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations against the present applicants

are that they used an iron rod and also assaulted the victim with fists

and blows. The injury certificate shows that the injuries suffered by

the victim were simple in nature. However, it is settled law that the

nature of the injury is not of much relevance while considering an

offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Taking into consideration the

submissions made across the bar that there was an old family dispute,

the fact that the applicants were beneficiaries of anticipatory bail, and

3 of 5
(( 4 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026

further considering that the appeal is of the year 2026, likely to take a

sufficiently long period for hearing, the relief as prayed for deserves

to be granted. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Applications stand allowed.

(ii) The substantive sentence imposed on the applicants i.e.
Sandeep Namdeo Khade (Applicant in Criminal Application
No.3240 of 2026) and Kailas Baburao Sonwane (Applicant
in Criminal Application No.3311 of 2026) by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed in Sessions Case No.55 of
2017 dated 27.07.2026, stands suspended till final hearing
and disposal of Criminal Appeal Nos.645 of 2026.

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

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

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

(vi) In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the
applicants to remain present before the trial Court, the trial
Court to inform this Court about the same and in that

4 of 5
(( 5 )) 6-Cri-Apln-3240, 3311-2026

eventuality, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an
application for cancellation of the bail granted to the
applicants.

(vii) Bail before the trial Court.

[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]

SMS

5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…