GANESH RANGNATH DANDGE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:11684


                                                                    CriAppln-755-2026
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 755 OF 2026
                              IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2026

                 1.    Ganesh Rangnath Dandge
                 2.    Shivram Rangnath Dandge
                 3.    Kautik Ranoba Dandge
                 4.    Pradip Suresh Dandge
                 5.    Sandip Ganesh Dandge
                 6.    Yogesh Ganesh Dandge
                 7.    Pravin Suresh Dandge                      … Applicants

                             Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra                  … Respondent
                                                 …..
                 Mr.Satej Jadhav, Mr.Rohit Patwardhan, Advocates for the Applicants.
                 Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                  .....

                                         CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on   : 17.03.2026
                                         Pronounced on : 18.03.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.    Instant application is for suspension of sentence and grant of

                 bail as result of conviction recorded by learned Additions Sessions

                 Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2017

                 convicting applicants for offence under Sections 307, 143, 147, 452,

                 323 r/w 149 of IPC.



                 2.    Learned counsel submitted that applicants were tried vide

                 above Sessions Case and finally they stood convicted by above

                 judgment, against which appeal is preferred and the same is pending
                                                      CriAppln-755-2026
                                  -2-

herein. He pointed out that, conviction recorded is for five years,

however, there is a good case in appeal and further, bright chances of

succeeding in the same. He pointed out that, there are allegations of

forceful administration of insecticide. That, there is already civil

dispute over land. According to him, there is no medical evidence, as

neither peritoneal wash nor vomit is collected during investigation.

That, there is no supportive medical evidence to show that there was

danger to the life of informant. According to him, thus, primary and

fundamental requirements for attracting Section 307 are patently

missing. He further submitted that, even so called tin container of

insecticide is allegedly recovered from the Krishi Seva Kendra where

such insecticide are sold across the counter. He further pointed out

that, even said recovery is after two days of the incident. Therefore,

according to him, there are several points on merit in appeal against

the judgment and order of conviction.



3.    It is his further case that sentence awarded is of five years and

appeal being recent one, there are no immediate prospects of hearing

the appeal, and for such reasons, he urges for suspension of sentence.



4.    Above application is opposed by learned APP on the ground

that on full fledged trial, that too on the testimony of as many as nine
                                                      CriAppln-755-2026
                                  -3-

witnesses, conviction has been recorded. That, it is a serious offence

of attempt to commit murder. He pointed out that, there is convincing

and trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly

of PW1 and PW2.



5.    Bearing in mind the legal position while dealing with

application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal,

here, it is seen that conviction is for Section 307 and other penal

sections. However, it is pointed out that, there was no sound

foundation to arrive to said conclusion and he took this Court through

the observations of trial court in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the

impugned judgment.



6.    Considering the submissions made by learned counsel that the

so called tin container was seized after two days, that too from a

place where such products are sold, and as pointed out, there are

other points like non-availability of supportive medical evidence

substantiating the charge of attempting to commit murder, and also

taking into account the appeal against conviction to be of current year

and there are no chances of hearing the appeal in near future,

application deserves to be granted. Hence, the following order :
                                                         CriAppln-755-2026
                                     -4-

                                    ORDER

I.    The Criminal Application is allowed.


II.   The substantive sentence imposed on the applicants in Sessions
      Case No. 67 of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
      Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 03.02.2026 stands suspended till
      the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 132 of
      2026.


III. The applicants be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
      Fifteen Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties in the like
      amount by each.


IV. The applicants shall not commit any criminal activity.


V.    The applicants shall remain present before the learned trial Judge
      once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,
      commencing from the date they tender bail papers and thereafter,
      the trial Judge to fix dates for their subsequent appearances.


VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicants to
      remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform this
      court about the same and in that eventuality, the prosecution
      would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail
      granted to the applicants.


VII. Bail before the trial court.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre