Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VYANKAT SHIVAJI SHINDE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal
APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

Since the applicant had already served more than two years of the fixed term and there was no evidence of threat to witnesses or trial delay, the application for suspension of sentence and bail was allowed.

Summary

The applicants Vyankat Shinde and Maya were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, of offences under Section 326 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment with fines. They filed a criminal application seeking bail and suspension of their sentences, contending that Vyankat had already served more than two years of his three‑year term and that the fine would be paid promptly, while Maya had cooperated with the trial and was not a flight risk. The prosecution’s case involved an assault and stabbing incident, but the star witness turned hostile during trial. The court noted that there was no evidence of threat to witnesses or unnecessary delay of the trial. Considering the time already served and the absence of any adverse factors, the court allowed the application, suspending the sentences pending the final decision on the appeal and granting bail on the same terms as the trial court.

Issues considered

  • Whether a convicted person who has already served a substantial portion of a fixed‑term sentence can be granted bail and have the sentence suspended pending appeal
  • Whether the absence of witness intimidation or trial delay justifies suspension of the sentence

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • suspension of sentence
  • Indian Penal Code
  • rigorous imprisonment
  • witness hostile
  • criminal appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:502
                                                     (1)                902criapln63.26




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              902 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2026
                                         IN APEAL/7/2026

                                 VYANKAT SHIVAJI SHINDE AND ANOTHER
                                                                  ….Applicants
                                               VERSUS

                                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                                        …..Respondent
                                               WITH
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2026

                   Mr. Dhanraj S. Ingole, Advocate for the applicants
                   Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the respondents/State

                                        CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                          DATE : 08th JANUARY, 2026


                   PER COURT :

                   1.          The present application is preferred by the applicants

                   who were original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for grant of bail and

                   suspension of sentence. The accused Nos. 1 and 2/ present applicants

                   were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur on

                   23-12-2025. The accused No.1 Vyankat was convicted for the

                   commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and

                   directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay

                   fine of Rs.5000/- in default he was directed to undergo rigorous

                   imprisonment for six months.



                                                                                    1 of 4
                                  (2)               902criapln63.26




2.           So far as accused No. 2-Maya is concerned she was

convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section

323 of the IPC and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one

year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default she was directed to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3.           The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the

accused No.1-Vyankt was arrested on 16-01-2024 and is behind the

bar as an under trial prisoner. So far as the applicant No.2-Maya is

concerned she was arrested on 17-01-2024 and was behind the bar,

after which she was released on bail on 31-01-2024. The applicant

No. 2-Maya has not misused the liberty and cooperated for early

completion of trial.

4.           So far as the applicant No.1-Vyankt is concerned, the

learned advocate for the applicants submits that Vyankat has already

undergone the period of two years of sentence imposed upon him. He

further submits that fine amount would be deposited by them within

two weeks from today. His statement is accepted.

5.           Be that as it may, in short, it was the case of the

prosecution that on 18-06-2023 at about 08.30 pm the informant was

chitchating with accused Vyankat in front of the house. When the

accused Vyankat talked indecently about deceased Sister, the

informant reprimanded the accused not to talk about deceased sister.


                                                                2 of 4
                                    (3)                 902criapln63.26




This resulted into exchange of words and assault. At that time

according to the case of the prosecution the applicant No. 2- Maya

thrashed stone to abdomen of victim and the applicant No.1 Vyankat

stabbed with a knife into the abdomen, back and buttock of the

informant due to which he sustained injuries. The injuries sustained

by the victim of crime are mentioned in the judgment more

particularly at Page No. 22. Four injuries mentioned in medico-legal

certificate vide Exh.78 i.e. incised wound right into back of abdomen

in size 5x3x2 cm., other were contused lacerated wound. It was

pointed out to the court that though the applicants were tried for the

commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504

read with section 34 ultimately the charge was diluted by convicting

the applicant No. 1 for the commission of offence punishable under

Section 326 of the IPC.

6.           It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of

the trial the star witness i.e. victim has turned hostile.

7.           Since the sentence imposed upon the applicants is of

fixed term and he has already undergone the imprisonment for more

than two years I am inclined to allow the application. It is not even

the case of the prosecution that he has in any manner threatened

witnesses or has protracted the trial unnecessarily. Accordingly, the

application is allowed. The sentence imposed by the Additional


                                                                    3 of 4
                                          (4)                 902criapln63.26




Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 78/2024 so far as

convicting the applicant Vyankat for the commission of the offences

punishable under section 326 and the applicant No.2 Maya for the

commission of offence punishable under section 323 stands

suspended           till   the   final   decision     on   the   appeal.    The

accused/applicants be released on bail on same terms as were

imposed by the trial court.

8.                Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

disposed of.



                                                [RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ]

VishalK/902criapln63.26




                                                                           4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.