Bombay High Court
VICKY ALIAS VIKRAM VIJAY GHATAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that, having served over 11 years with good conduct and no antecedents, the appellant is entitled to bail and suspension of his sentence pending the appeal.
Summary
Vicky @ Vikram Vijay Ghatage was convicted of murder and attempted murder under IPC Sections 302, 307 read with 34 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine and six months of rigorous imprisonment. He appealed the conviction in 2019, and by October 2026 had served more than 11 years in custody with a good conduct certificate and no prior criminal antecedents. The appellant sought bail and suspension of his sentence pending the appeal, relying on Supreme Court pronouncements in Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Dinesh Paul @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra, which favour bail for prisoners who have served over ten years and whose appeals are not imminent. The High Court examined the custody report, conduct certificate, and the Supreme Court guidelines, and concluded that the applicant qualified for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail, suspended the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, and imposed standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether a person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, who has served more than ten years, is eligible for bail pending appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court guidelines in Saudan Singh, Sonadhar, and Dinesh Paul cases are applicable to the present case.
- Whether the sentence should be suspended under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 389
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- life imprisonment
- IPC 302
- IPC 307
- long-term incarceration
- appeal pending
- conduct certificate
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
IA-1182-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1610 OF 2019
Vicky @ Vikram Vijay Ghatage .. Applicant/Appellant
V/S.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
-------------------
Mr. R.S. Dubey, for the Applicant /Appellant.
VISHAL Smt. P.N. Dabholkar (through VC) APP, for the Respondent/State.
SUBHASH
PAREKAR --------------------
Digitally signed by CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Date: 2026.10.01
11:42:53 +0530
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
ORDER: (Per Shreeram V. Shirsat, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Dubey, Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and
Smt. Dabholkar, Learned APP for the State.
2. The Applicant/Appellant is seeking bail and suspension of sentence
pending appeal, essentially on the ground that the Applicant has undergone
a sentence for more than 11 years.
3. The Applicant/Appellant has been convicted by a judgment and order
dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (“IPC”) and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence and in default of the
Vishal Parekar 1 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.
4. Against the said order of conviction, the Applicant/Appellant has
preferred an appeal before this Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of
2019, which is pending before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon the judgments of
Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Sonadhar v. State of
Chhattisgarh2.
6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is that the
Applicant has been incarcerated for more than 11 years and that the appeal
is not likely to be heard in the near future. He submitted that the Applicant
has been in jail since the date of his arrest. He submitted that there are no
extenuating circumstances or any criminal antecedents against the
Applicant. He also submitted that an earlier bail application made by the
Applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2020. He also
submitted that the Accused No. 1 Babu Khare, has been released on bail as
he had undergone more than 10 years and 2 months of actual
imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is not
arguing the bail application on merits, but has confined his case only to
limited extent that Applicant has suffered long incarceration of more than
1 (2023) 17 SCC 446
2 (2022) SC 788
Vishal Parekar 2 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
11 years.
7. Per contra, the Ld. APP strongly opposed the release of the Applicant
on bail pending appeal and submitted that the Applicant is involved in an
offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and the same has been
committed in a calculated manner and therefore, the application be rejected.
The Ld. APP submitted that the Applicant has committed as very serious
offence and therefore the Applicant should not be released on bail pending
the appeal.
8. In Saudan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe
as under:
“7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the advocate
may not be present as has been set out in the report of the High
Court but if they have already completed 14 years of actual
sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate stand and the
learned Judge can himself pass appropriate orders to at least
examine those cases for release and the absence of the advocate
cannot come in the way in such a scenario.
8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for the
High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases where the
person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not a repeat
offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go bail can be
granted and cases remitted for examination under the Uttar
Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938. In all these
cases, there is a high possibility that if these people are released,
they may not be even interest in prosecuting their appeals.
9. The second category of cases can be one where the person has
served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at
one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating
circumstances against him.
10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the
aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be
troubled with such matters.”
Vishal Parekar 3 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
9. We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by the
Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the Applicant
has served more than 11 years of actual imprisonment, the bail application
of the Applicant can be considered.
10. We had asked the Ld. APP to call for a report from the jail authorities
to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by the Applicant.
The Ld. APP has placed on record the Custody Report as well as the Conduct
Certificate of the Applicant submitted by the Superintendent of Jail,
Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba. The Custody Report notes that the
Applicant has undergone a sentence of 11 years, 3 months, and 14 days of
actual imprisonment as on 31.08.2026. The conduct certificate of the
Applicant dated 20.09.2026 shows that the Applicant follows the prison
rules and regulations and that his behaviour is good.
11. Considering the fact that the Applicant has undergone actual
imprisonment of more than 11 years, there are no criminal antecedents and
the appeal is of the year 2019, which is not likely to be taken up for hearing
in the near future, coupled with the fact that the behaviour of the Applicant
is good, we are inclined to release the Applicant on bail pending appeal.
12. We may also refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been
observed that “we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10
Vishal Parekar 4 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no
extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail."
13. We also refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra 3, wherein it was
held that:
“the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of more than 11
years. In fact, the High Court ought to have granted relief under Section 389
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the appellant.”
14. Taking into consideration the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we
are inclined to allow this application. As a consequence, the Applicant is
found to be entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the
appeal.
Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
A) The Application is allowed.
B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 457 of 2014 vide
judgment dated 24.10.2019 is suspended during the pendency of
the appeal, and the Applicant is released on bail on the following
conditions:
i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety
3 (Criminal Appeal No. 2987 of 2023)
Vishal Parekar 5 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one
or more local sureties.
(ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the
Navghar Police Station, on the first Monday of every month for a
period of one year initially, and thereafter once in six months till
the disposal of the appeal, preferably on the first Monday of
January and June of every year. In case of two consecutive
defaults in complying with the aforesaid condition, the
prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation
of bail.
(iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential address
and phone number and inform the police if there is any change in
the address or phone number.
(iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without informing Navghar Police Station.
(v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of this Court and shall deposit his passport, if any,
with this Court.
(vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case.
(vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout any of
the conditions imposed herein.
Vishal Parekar 6 of 7
IA-1182-2025.doc
(viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the
period of his release.
(ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of the
final hearing of the appeal.
(x) The Applicant shall deposit the fine amount as directed by the
Trial Court before his release.
15. The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed of.
16. All other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar 7 of 7
Checking your session…