Bombay High Court

DEEPAK BALASAHEB TUPEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the seriousness of the assault and the evidence of the applicant's participation preclude any suspension of sentence or grant of bail.

Summary

Deepak Balasaheb Tupe, convicted under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for assault with a sword, applied for suspension of his five‑year sentence and bail pending an appeal. He argued that he was only a secondary accused, that the sword was not recovered, and that the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, indicating merit in his appeal. The State contended that the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony and a medical expert’s report of twenty injuries, showed Tupe facilitated the assault by holding the victim and that the weapon was used. The court examined the facts, noting the seriousness of the offence and the lack of any procedural defect warranting relief. It concluded that the non‑recovery of the sword did not justify suspension of the sentence or bail, and therefore rejected the application.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under Section 109 BNS warrants suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.
Whether the non‑recovery of the weapon and delay in filing the FIR constitute grounds for granting relief.
Whether the role of a secondary accused precludes suspension of sentence.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109

Subjects

criminal law
suspension of sentence
bail
assault with deadly weapon
Section 109 BNS
secondary accused
evidence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41138

CriAppln-3528-2026
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3528 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2026

Deepak Balasaheb Tupe
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Labour,
R/o. Khairi Nimgaon, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar … Applicant
[Accused]
Versus

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Shrirampur Taluka Police Station,
Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar … Respondent

…..
Mr. Shaikh Majit S., Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti, APP for the Respondent-State.
.....

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 04.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.09.2026

ORDER :

1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in

Sessions Case No. 06 of 2025 dated 12.08.2026 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar for offence under

Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS] and equally, prayer

is raised for grant of bail also.
CriAppln-3528-2026
-2-

2. In support of relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail,

learned Counsel for applicant pointed out that applicant was

arraigned as accused No.3. That, he is not the main accused. There

are allegations of use of sword, however, the same is not recovered.

That, there is three days delay in lodging FIR. Therefore, applicant

has a good case on merits in appeal, which is pending. That,

applicant was on bail during trial. Fine amount is paid and for above

reasons, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for.

3. Learned APP, who opposed the application, pointed to the

evidence of PW1 complainant. According to learned APP, on minor

count of advise to drive properly, accused persons alighted from the

vehicle. They were armed with articles like chopper, sword, which

were used. That, present applicant allegedly held and facilitated the

assault and, therefore, charges being proved, she prays to reject the

application.

4. Heard. Perused the papers. Occurrence seems to be of

13.09.2024. Dash was given by a swift vehicle causing motorcycle of

PW1 to fall and on being questioned to that count, it is alleged that

one Prasad, Waghuji and Deepak (present applicant) alighted and in

above backdrop, it is alleged that initially Prasad gave slaps and when

Santosh intervened, he was beaten by fists and kicks blows.
CriAppln-3528-2026
-3-

Thereafter, it is alleged that Prasad went towards the vehicle and

returned with chopper and sword and handed it to Waghuji and the

same was used in assaulting PW1. It is alleged that at that time,

present applicant had caught hold of PW1. Therefore, he facilitated

the assault. Hence, merely because there is no recovery of the sword,

that by itself cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant.

The sentence imposed is five years. Evidence of medical expert PW11

shows that informant has suffered as many as twenty injuries.

Considering the same, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant

relief of suspension of sentence and bail. Hence, the following order is

passed :-

ORDER

. Criminal Application is rejected.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…