Bombay High Court
PANDIT PUNDALIK DAFALversusBHIKADAS RAMBHAJI MHASKE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The application is allowed; the non‑bailable warrant is recalled and the applicant is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000 within two days and Rs.2,00,000 within two months, with bail granted on stipulated conditions.
Summary
The applicant, a 66‑year‑old retired bank employee, sought cancellation of a non‑bailable warrant issued after he failed to pay the full Rs.5,00,000 conditionally required for suspension of his sentence. The High Court noted that while the applicant had paid Rs.2,43,000, he had not deposited the remaining Rs.3,00,000 within the stipulated period, constituting non‑compliance. The applicant argued for leniency on the basis of his senior‑citizen status and offered to pay Rs.1,00,000 immediately and the balance of Rs.2,00,000 within two months. The respondent opposed any relaxation, labeling the applicant’s conduct as willful contempt. After considering the submissions, the Court allowed the application, recalled the warrant, and ordered the applicant to deposit Rs.1,00,000 within two days and Rs.2,00,000 within two months, with bail to be granted on the condition of a personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑bailable warrant can be cancelled despite the applicant's partial compliance with the deposit condition.
- Whether the court may exercise discretion to show leniency to a senior citizen and modify the payment schedule.
- Whether failure to deposit the remaining amount amounts to contempt of court warranting denial of relief.
- Whether bail can be granted subject to new financial and surety conditions.
Subjects
- bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- contempt of court
- senior citizen
- deposit condition
- criminal revision
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45919
4025.26apln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4025 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2024
PANDIT PUNDALIK DAFAL
VERSUS
BHIKADAS RAMBHAJI MHASKE AND ANOTHER
…..
Mr Ujwal S. Patil, Advocate for Applicant
Mr G. B. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent No.2/State
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 01st OCTOBER, 2026
P. C. :
1. The applicant has preferred this application for cancelling
the order dated 10/09/2026, passed by this Court issuing non-bailable
warrant against him. The applicant states that this Court vide order
dated 03/07/2024, passed in Criminal Application No.2414/2024, had
suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant,
subject to depositing the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before the appellate
Court. The said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was directed to be deposited
in two installments i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- forthwith and remaining
Rs.3,00,000/- within two months. Prior to the said directions of
4025.26apln
(2)
depositing Rs.5,00,000/-, the applicant has already deposited
Rs.2,43,000/- before the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the
applicant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- as per the order dated
03/07/2024, however, the another installment of Rs.3,00,000/- was not
deposited within stipulated period. The applicant has not complied
with the condition imposed by this Court for suspending substantive
sentence, and therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him
returnable today i.e. on 01/10/2026.
2. Accordingly, the police authorities have produced the
applicant before this Court. Since this Court has already suspended
the substantive sentence of the applicant, however, specific condition
was put to him as regards depositing of Rs.5,00,000/-. Admittedly, he
deposited Rs.2,00,000/-, but virtually failed to pay the remaining
Rs.3,00,000/-. This Court had granted time of three months to deposit
Rs.3,00,000/-. Despite sufficient time having been granted to him, he
has not deposited the said amount. Where there is clear cut non-
compliance of the order, there is no point to show sympathy to such
litigant.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant points out to this
Court that the applicant is aged about 66 years and he has also offered
4025.26apln
(3)
to pay Rs.1,00,000/- within two days from today before the learned
Trial Court and he also assures to pay remaining amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- within two months. Though this Court having found the
applicant non complying the order passed by this Court on 03/07/2024,
however, since the applicant being senior citizen and willing to deposit
the remaining amount, his application can be considered on the ground
of sympathy.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Chate for the complainant,
however, strongly opposes the instant application. He submits that
despite the order of this Court and there being concurrent findings and
the order of suspending sentence of conviction of paying amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-, the applicant is in willful contempt of Court and ought
not to be shown any leniency. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the
present application. He further submits that the applicant be directed
to pay this amount at the earliest.
5. After considering the above submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective parties, it is found that the applicant is a
retired person from the Nationalized Bank and he is also having certain
liabilities. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as suggested by him
is directed to be deposited before the Trial Court through demand draft
4025.26apln
(4)
within two days from today. After receipt of such demand draft, the
Trial Court shall consider the application of the applicant for releasing
him on bail and while releasing the applicant on bail, usual conditions
be incorporated including that he should furnish P.R. bond of
Rs.20,000/- alongwith two sureties in the like amount. The remaining
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be deposited before the Trial Court within two
months. This application is allowed in view of the above terms.
Subject to above conditions, the order dated 10/09/2026 is recalled. If
there is violation of any of the above condition, then the order passed
today would also stand recalled.
6. Vide order dated 22.09.2026, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge remanded the applicant/ accused in judicial custody till
01.10.2026. Since the applicant is going to deposit an amount of Rs.1
lac through demand draft within two days, his judicial custody be
extended till Monday. If compliance of depositing the amount is made
as above, he shall be released on bail as directed above.
7. If the aforesaid amount is deposited by the applicant
within stipulated period, the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn
by the respondent/complainant.
4025.26apln
(5)
8. This Court on the last occasion, had directed the
concerned Police Station Officer to file his personal affidavit as to why
on previous occasion, the non-bailable warrant could not be executed.
Today, the concerned PSO has tendered the affidavit which is taken on
record.
9. Today, the applicant is produced before this Court by the
Police Authorities namely, Ashok Rangnath Barde, ASI and Sagar
Govind Suryawanshi, Police Constable. He is sent back to the custody.
10. The affidavit of applicant is dispensed with.
11. The parties to act on an copy downloaded and printed
from the official website of the Bombay High Court.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk.
Checking your session…