Bombay High Court

NARENDRA SANTOSH SALVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to suspension of his sentence and bail on parity, as the knife and blood evidence is not conclusive.

Summary

The High Court considered an interim application for suspension of the sentence imposed on Narendra Santosh Salvi, who was convicted under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 120-B r.w.s.34 of the IPC. The co‑convicts had already been released on bail after their sentences were suspended. The applicant argued that the knife recovered at his instance and the blood evidence (Section 27, Evidence Act) were unreliable, as the blood group matched both the deceased and the applicant, rendering the evidence inconclusive. The State contended that the knife and blood on the applicant’s clothes linked him to the crime. Relying on the principle of parity and finding the additional circumstance insufficient to deny bail, the Court allowed the application, suspended the substantive sentence, and ordered bail with conditions. The order also required the applicant to report monthly to the police and provide his address and contact details.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to suspension of his sentence and bail on the ground of parity with co‑convicts despite the knife and blood evidence.
Whether the evidence of discovery and recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is reliable enough to deny bail.
Whether the circumstantial evidence against the applicant is sufficient to justify refusal of suspension of sentence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 235(2)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B r.w.s.34, 201, 302, 397

Subjects

bail
suspension of sentence
parity
circumstantial evidence
knife evidence
blood group evidence
Indian Penal Code
interim application
criminal appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:9291-DB

24-IA-126-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2026
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2026

Narendra Santosh Salvi ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents

——————
Mr. Shreyash S. Butala a/w Mr. Mandar S. Khambete Advocate for the Applicant
Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, Addl. PP for the Applicant / Appellant – State
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 28, 2026.
P. C. :

1. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Tal- Khed, District Ratnagiri in

Sessions Case No. 4 of 2018 by Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025,

thereby convicting and sentencing the Applicant as follows:

1. Accused No.1 Abhijit Sudhakar Jadhav, No.2 Narendra
Santosh Salvi and No.3 Akshay Vishnu Shigvan are convicted of the
offences punishable under Section 302, 397,201, 120-B rws 34 of the
Indian Penal Code vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

2. The accused No.1 to 3 shall undergo life imprisonment for the
offence committed u/s 302, 201 and 120-B r.w.s.34 of IPC and fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each. They shall suffer simple
imprisonment for three months in default of fine.

Sameer 1 of 5
24-IA-126-2026.doc

3. The accused No.1 to 3 shall undergo Rigorous imprisonment
for seven years for the offence committed u/s 397 r.w.s.34 of IPC and
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each. They shall suffer
simple imprisonment for three months in default of fine.

4. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
5. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
6. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
7. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
8. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
9. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”
10. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …..”

2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant /

Appellant that, the co-convicts are already enlarged on bail by this Court

after suspension of their sentence. The only circumstance against the

Applicant / Appellant is that, the knife was discovered and seized at his

instance. He submits that, the evidence under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, is not trustworthy, as the evidence of the panch

witness to the discovery and recovery does not inspire confidence. He

circulated across the bar a copy of the order by which two convicts are

released on bail on suspension of their sentence. He submits that, the

Application be allowed on the ground of parity.

3. The Application is opposed by the learned APP. She submits that,

the weapon used in the crime was discovered and seized at the instance

of the Applicant / Appellant. The human blood was found on the knife

as well as on the clothes of the Applicant / Appellant. However, she

does not dispute that, the co-convicts are enlarged on bail by this Court.

Sameer 2 of 5
24-IA-126-2026.doc

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 30.10.2017, the convicts

approached the deceased Rajaram, who was driving the three-wheeler,

with a request to ferry the passengers who were waiting at village

Tondali, and requested him to accompany them. Later on, the dead body

of said Rajaram was found. The matter was reported to the police. The

C.R. No. 47 of 2017 came to be registered with Mandangad Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 201 and

120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. Perusal of the order dated 14.07.2026 passed in Interim

Application No.3676/2025 and order dated 10.09.2026 passed in Interim

Application No.404/2026 shows that, the co-convicts, namely, Abhijit

Sudhakar Jadhav and Akshay Vishnu Shigvan, had filed Applications for

suspension of sentence and after hearing both the sides, this Court

allowed both the Applications and released them on bail by suspending

their sentence.

6. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. One of the

circumstances is that, the deceased accompanied the convicts. It is not

in dispute that, the evidence of last seen is against all the convicts. The

co-convicts are already granted bail by suspending their sentence. The

additional circumstance against the Applicant / Appellant is discovery /

recovery of the knife.

Sameer 3 of 5
24-IA-126-2026.doc

7. The observations in Paragraph No.44 of the Judgment passed by

the learned Trial Court goes to show that, blood group of ‘A’ was found

on the knife, and the blood group of the deceased as well as the

Applicant / Appellant both is also ‘A’. Thus, there is no conclusive

evidence to show that, the blood on the knife was that of Deceased

only. Therefore, the said discovery / recovery may not be relevant. If the

said circumstance is discarded, the Applicant / Appellant stands on the

same footing as that of co-convicts, who are granted bail. The Applicant

is behind bars for a period of eight (08) and ten (10) months. The Appeal

is of the year 2026 and is not likely to be heard finally in the near future.

Thus, on the ground of parity, we allow the Application and proceed to

pass the following order :

ORDER

a) The Application is allowed.
b) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Khed, Tal- Khed, District Ratnagiri in Sessions
Case No. 4 of 2018 by Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025
on the Applicant/Appellant, is suspended during pendency of
the Appeal.

c) Applicant - Narendra Santosh Salvi be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

d) The Applicant/Appellant, before to his release, shall provide
details of his residential address and mobile/landline contact
numbers to the jail authorities which shall be forwarded to
the concerned Police Station.

Sameer 4 of 5
24-IA-126-2026.doc

e) The Applicant/Appellant shall report to the concerned police
station, i.e., Mandangad Police Station, once a month, on the
last day of month, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., until
further orders.

f) The Applicant/Appellant shall co-operate with this Court for
early hearing of the Appeal.

g) Bail before the Trial Court.

8. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Sameer 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…