Bombay High Court

BALKRUSHNA KESHAVRAO SHEWALEversusMrs. MADHUKAR SHANKARRAO GUNJAL (DIED) 1-A MANDAKINI MADHUKAR GUNJAL AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the application, suspended the substantive sentence until the final disposal of the revision, and granted bail on a personal bond.

Summary

Balkrushna Keshavrao Shewale was convicted under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to one year imprisonment, a fine of Rs.10,000 and compensation of Rs.2,50,000. He appealed, but the appeal was dismissed, leading him to file a criminal revision seeking suspension of the sentence and bail. The applicant argued that the revision would take considerable time and that he had previously been on bail, justifying suspension and release. The State opposed, contending that all elements of conviction were established. The Bombay High Court, considering the length of the sentence, nature of the offence, and the pending revision, allowed the application, suspended the sentence pending final disposal of the revision, and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant should be suspended pending the hearing of the criminal revision application
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant during the pendency of the revision

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 142

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
criminal revision
Negotiable Instruments Act
Section 138
Section 142
simple imprisonment
compensation

Judgment

                                 *1*                      2appln3792o26


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3792 OF 2026
                     IN REVN/312/2026

                         WITH
      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2026

          BALKRUSHNA KESHAVRAO SHEWALE
                     VERSUS
       MADHUKAR SHANKARRAO GUNJAL (DIED) 1-A
       MANDAKINI MADHUKAR GUNJAL AND OTHERS
                                 …
Shri Temkar Rajendra K., Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                               ...

                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                    DATE : 15 September 2026
                        (Through VC)

P. C. :-

(a)     Criminal Application No.3792/2026:-


1.            Heard.


2.            The instant application is for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail in pursuance of the impugned judgment and

order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the learned JMFC,

Ahmednagar, in STC No.2569/2010 thereby, convicting the

applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with

Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
                                *2*                      2appln3792o26


sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and

directing to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, so also, fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment

for one month. Criminal Appeal No.211/2014 preferred by the

applicant against the conviction is dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide impugned

judgment and order dated 03.09.2026. Hence, the applicant has

preferred the Criminal Revision Application before this Court.


3.          In support of the prayer, the learned advocate for the

applicant states that there are strong and valid grounds raised in

the Criminal Revision application and there is high chance that

the applicant would succeed in the revision application. The

applicant was on bail during the pendency of the proceedings

before the Courts below. According to the learned advocate, the

revision would take long time to be heard and decided. As such,

the sentence is required to be suspended and the bail be granted.


4.          The learned APP opposed the application pointing

out that all ingredients for recording conviction were available.

Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant.


5.          Perused the papers. The applicant was on bail during
                                 *3*                    2appln3792o26


the pendency of proceedings before the Courts below.

Considering the quantum of sentence, nature of allegations and

the fact that the Criminal Revision Application having been filed

in 2026, would take sufficiently long time to be heard and

decided, the Criminal Application needs to be allowed. Hence, I

pass the following order :-


                              ORDER

(i)          The Criminal Application stands allowed.

(ii)         The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant
vide the impugned judgment and order, stands suspended till the
final hearing and disposal of Criminal Revision Application
No.312/2026.

(iii)        The applicant be released on P.R. bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only) with one surety in
the like amount.

(iv)         Bail before the trial Court.

(b)     Criminal Revision Application No.312/2026:-


6.           Heard.


7.           Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on

08.10.2026. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of
                                    *4*                     2appln3792o26


      the respondent/State.


      8.          Call for the record and proceedings from the

      concerned Court.


      9.          Parties to act on the copy of this order downloaded

      from the official website of the Bombay High Court.




kps                           ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…