Bombay High Court
PANKAJ @ BUNTY RAJU NAIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court suspended the appellant's sentence and granted bail pending final disposal of the appeal.
Summary
The Sessions Judge convicted Pankaj Alias Bunty Raju Nair and co-accused under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing each to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000. The appellant filed interim applications seeking suspension of the sentence and bail, arguing that the key eyewitness PW2 was hostile, that the first informant denied identifying the appellant, and that there were material discrepancies in the time of the incident and lack of corroborative evidence. The State contended that PW2’s testimony, supported by medical evidence, was reliable and sufficient for conviction. The Court examined the credibility of PW2, the timing inconsistency, and the absence of identification of the weapon, concluding that the appellant had made out a prima facie case deserving of relief. In view of the appellant having served about eleven months and the appeal likely taking considerable time, the Court exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail subject to conditions, also imposing restrictions on contacting the informant and witnesses and requiring periodic police reporting.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction based primarily on the testimony of a hostile witness PW2 can be sustained.
- Whether the discrepancy in the time of occurrence undermines the reliability of PW2’s evidence.
- Whether the lack of identification of the appellant by the first informant and the weapon defeats the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
- Whether bail can be granted in view of the nature of the offence and the evidence on record.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34
Subjects
- Attempt to murder
- Common intention
- Hostile witness
- Bail
- Suspension of sentence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2026
Pankaj Alias Bunty Raju Nair ..Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2026
Mr. Prabhanjan Dave, with Amrish Salunke, for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1289 OF 2026 (FOR SUSPENSION
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA OF SENTENCE) AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2026
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.10.03
(FOR BAIL):
13:53:36 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
ARS 1/6
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
2. These Applications are for suspension of sentence, and to enlarge
the Applicant on bail.
3. By a judgment and order dated 5 th March 2026, in Sessions Case
No. 173 of 2017, passed the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai,
the Applicant (Accused No.1) and co-accused Manoj Vyankatesh
Darumal (Accused No.3), have been convicted for an offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“the Penal Code”) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a
term of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with default
stipulation.
4. The Applicant and the co-accused were prosecuted on the
allegations that, on the night intervening 15 th and 16th July 2016, while
the first informant (PW1) was passing from in front of P.M.G.P. Colony,
Dharavi, the Applicant (A1) accosted him. The other co-accused came
thereat. The Applicant and the co-accused raked up a quarrel over a
previous incident of assault. The Applicant (A1) allegedly took out a
knife and gave blows on the stomach and head of first informant, who
suffered bleeding injuries.
5. After the appraisal of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge
found the Applicant and co-accused, Manoj Vyankatesh Darumal (A3)
guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section
34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them, as indicated above.
ARS 2/6
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
6. Mr. Dave, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that
the first informant has categorically stated that he was not assaulted by
the Applicant. Unknown persons had assaulted him. The learned
Sessions Judge committed an error in convicting the Applicant and the
co-accused, solely on the basis of the testimony of PW2, who was
allegedly an eye-witness. Taking the Court through the testimony of
PW2, Mr. Dave would urge that, it does not inspire confidence. There is
no other evidence to connect the Applicant with the alleged offence.
7. In opposition to this, Mr. D.J. Haldankar, the learned APP,
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the
evidence. PW2 had known the Applicant, co-accused and the first
informant since childhood. PW2 has categorically deposed that Manoj
Darumal (A3) caught hold of the informant and the Applicant gave
blows by means of knife. The medical evidence lends corroboration to
the version of PW-2. Hence, the Applicant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. It is trite, the testimony of a witness who has turned hostile does
not get completely effaced. Such part of the testimony of a hostile
witness can be legitimately taken into account which finds
corroboration in the other evidence. In the case at hand, there is prima
facie material to show that the informant had sustained grievous
injuries on account of the assault by means of a sharp weapon. The fate
ARS 3/6
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
of the prosecution turns upon the identity of the Applicant as one of the
assailants.
9. As noted above, the first informant has categorically declined to
identify the Applicant as one of the assailants. He deposed that
unknown persons had assaulted him. At the same time, PW2 was
steadfast in asserting that, it was the Applicant who had assaulted the
first informant by means of a knife.
10. At this juncture, the evidence of PW2 cannot be evaluated
meticulously. However, the Court finds that the incident, according to
the prosecution, had occurred after midnight on 16 th July 2016. In
contrast, PW2 deposed that the incident had occurred between 10.00
pm to 11.00 pm. Having regard to the significant discrepancy in the
time of occurrence, the questions as to whether implicit reliance could
have been placed on the testimony of the PW2 and whether PW2 had
opportunity to witness the incident, prima facie, warrant consideration
at the final adjudication of the appeal.
11. So far as the circumstantial evidence, evidently, PW2 expressed
his inability to identify the weapon which was recovered purportedly
pursuant to the discovery made by the Applicant. Even panch witness
who allegedly witnessed the discovery expressed his inability to identify
the Applicant as the person who made the discovery leading to the
recovery of the weapon of offence.
ARS 4/6
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant can be said to have
succeeded in making out a prima facie case that, he has a fair chance of
success in the Appeal.
13. As the Appeal is of the year 2026 and it is unlikely that this
Appeal can be taken up for hearing and final disposal, in near feature,
and the Applicant has undergone sentence of about 11 months, this
Court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicant.
14. Hence, the following order:
(i) Applications stand allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed on the
Applicant, Pankaj Alias Bunty Raju Nair, by the
Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case
No. 173 of 2017 arising out of Crime No. 357/2016,
Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai, stands suspended till
the final disposal of the Appeal.
(iii) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and
one or two sureties in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.
(iv) The Applicant shall not contact, or give threat
to, the first informant and the witnesses examined by
the prosecution.
ARS 5/6
17-APEAL-366-2026.DOC
(v) Upon being released on bail, the applicant shall
furnish his address(es) and contact number to the
Investigating Officer and keep him informed in case
of any change therein.
(vii) The Applicant shall mark his presence at
Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai, on the first Monday
of November and May, every year, till the final
disposal of the Appeal.
Applications disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 6/6
Checking your session…