PINTU @ ANKUSH BALIRAM RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                     (1)
                                                   Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3285 OF 2026
              IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026

PINTU @ ANKUSH BALIRAM RATHOD …..                APPLICANT

     VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                   …..   RESPONDENT
                                     ….
Mr. S. S. Palnitkar, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
                                     ….

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

                 DATE       : 09/09/2026

ORDER ( PER : SANDIPKUMAMR C. MORE, J.) :


1.   Heard rival submissions.

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

No.2 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024, 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 case, the present applicant, along with

the other accused, on account of an earlier dispute, allegedly entered

the house of the deceased on 10.10.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. At that

time, the son of the informant, namely Vinod, was resting on a cot in

the courtyard. It is alleged that all the accused had come with the
                                   (2)
                                                 Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt
intention of killing Vinod. Accordingly, the present applicant, who is

accused No. 2, threw chilli powder into Vinod's eyes and accused No.1,

Dhondiba, inflicted a knife blow on Vinod's chest. It is further alleged

that, at the time of the assault, the accused No.3 Kashabhai had

caught hold of Vinod to prevent him from escaping. Thereafter,

accused No.4, Kalpana, also threw chilli powder at the informant and

his family members when they rushed to the spot to rescue Vinod.



4.   Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there are

eyewitnesses to the incident, the role attributed to the present

applicant is limited to throwing chilli powder towards the deceased.

According to him, accused No.3 Kashabai, who had hold the deceased

enabling accused No.1 to give knife blow, is also released on bail.        As

per his submissions, there may be possibility of scaling down of the

offence of murder to the extent of this applicant. It is further

submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody for

considerable period the last three years, and therefore, considering the

limited role attributed to the applicant and the prolonged period of

incarceration, the applicant can be released on bail.



5.   On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, contending that

there is cogent evidence of eyewitnesses, whose versions consistently

corroborate each other with regard to the criminal acts committed by
                                     (3)
                                                   Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt
the applicant and the other accused. According to the learned A.P.P.,

though the role attributed to the present applicant is limited for

throwing the chilli powder, but it facilitated accused No.1 in inflicting

the fatal knife blow on the chest of the deceased. It is submitted that

the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates that he shared the

common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, Vinod. As

such, the learned A.P.P. prayed for rejection of the bail application.


6.   Upon perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned

judgment, it is evident that the allegation against the present applicant

is that he threw chilli powder in the eyes of of the deceased, thereby

enabling accused No.1 to inflict a knife blow on his chest. However,

the fact remains that it was accused No.1 who actually inflicted the

fatal blow on the deceased.



7.   To attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC,

the intention to cause death is a vital ingredient.              Under such

circumstances, it is yet to be seen from the evidence on record as to

whether the applicant was also having intention to kill the deceased.

Prima facie, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be confined

in throwing chilli powder at the time of the incident. Therefore, there

is a possibility that so far as the present applicant is concerned, the

offence may ultimately be scaled down from that of murder.           It is also

pertinent   to   note   that   the   applicant   has   already     undergone
                                    (4)
                                                    Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt
incarceration for considerable period      and there is no likelihood of the

present appeal being heard in the near future. Further, accused No.3

Kashabai, who had performed more serious role than this applicant,

is also released on bail during the pendency of this appeal vide order

dated 31.07.2026 by this Court. In these circumstances, having regard

to the nature of the role attributed to the applicant in the alleged

crime, , we are of the opinion that he can be released on bail during

the pendency of this appeal. In view of the same, we pass following

order.

                                 ORDER

       (A)   The application is allowed.

       (B)   The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life
             imposed upon the applicant/accused Pintu @ Ankush
             Baliram Rathod in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024 under
             judgment and order dated 13.03.2026 delivered by
             Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed, District : Nanded,
             is hereby suspended during the pendency of this
             appeal.
       (C)   The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of
             Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with
             one surety in the like amount.
       (D)   The application is accordingly disposed of.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                    (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                       JUDGE
Ysk/
(5)
      Cri. Application 3285-26 ).odt