Bombay High Court
INDRA LALBAHADUR KHATRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the applicant pending the appeal, subject to conditions.
Summary
Indra Lalbahadur Khatri, convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, IPC Section 302 and the Arms Act for the murder of a driver named Arif on 17 May 2011, applied for suspension of his sentence and bail after serving over 13 years without remission. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing his primary role in the shooting. The court, noting the voluminous evidence, the pendency of the appeal, and relying on the principle from Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), ordered the suspension of his sentence and granted bail with strict conditions, including residence outside Mumbai, regular police reporting, and surrender of passport. The applicant was required to furnish a bond of Rs.1 lakh with sureties. The interim application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a convicted person serving a life sentence for murder can be granted bail pending appeal.
- Whether the sentence can be suspended pending the final decision of the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4)
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- MCOC Act
- organized crime
- murder
- arms act
- appeal
- interim application
Judgment
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
SANDEEP
ARUNA TALWALKAR
SANDEEP Date:
TALWALKAR 2026.10.09
20:08:42
+0530
303.IA138.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2025
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2025
Indra Lalbahadur Khatri. … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2018
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 967 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2015
--------------
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola a/w. Mr. Chinmay Godse, Mr. Vishal Kolekar,
Mr. Yash Kamble, Mr. Digambar Tamanke i/b. Mr. Randhir Kale,
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for Respondent/State.
--------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is an application for suspension of the sentence and
for enlarging the Applicant on bail. There are in all 7 accused. The
Talwalkar 1
303.IA138.2025.odt
Applicant is accused No. 1.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that one driver by name
Arif who was employed by Iqbal Kaskar was shot dead by the
Accused No. 1 on 17th May, 2011 at about 9.30 p.m. Accused No. 1
and Accused No. 2 were apprehended by local public when they
were trying to flee away by taxi. The investigation revealed that
there were 7 accused. They were chargesheeted under the
provisions of Section 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act').
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that
the Applicant has already undergone the sentence more than 13
years 4 months without remission and 15 years with remission.
He submits that it will take some time to decide the matter on
merits and hence the Applicant be released on bail.
5. Mr. Palkar, Learned APP for the respondent-State
vehemently opposed the present application. It is submitted that
the role of the Applicant is main in as much as he is the person
Talwalkar 2
303.IA138.2025.odt
who carried out the shoot out. He contended that there are proper
findings rendered by the Court and therefore, pending this Appeal,
the Applicant may not be released on bail.
6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pasbola
appearing for the Applicant. He has relied upon the order dated
14th August, 2026 passed by this Court in Interim Application No.
4358 of 2023 whereby the Accused No. 4 was released on bail.
Although the role attributable to the present Applicant is that he
has used fire arms to carry out assault on deceased Arif and the
same has resulted in death, the matter is pending before us. There
are about 43 witnesses.
7. Taking into consideration the voluminous evidence and
the pendency of the proceedings before us, it is not possible for us
to decide the matter immediately. In view of these facts and
circumstances of the case, relying upon the principle laid down
in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC
697, we are inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the
Applicant on bail inspite of the opposition from the learned APP
for the Respondent. The Applicant voluntarily undertakes to reside
outside limits of Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban districts. Hence,
Talwalkar 3
303.IA138.2025.odt
we pass following order :
(i) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in
MCOC Special Case No. 14 of 2011 by the Judgment and
order dated 19th August, 2015 in respect of the applicant-
original accused No.1- Indra Lalbahadur Khatri is suspended
during the pendency of the present appeal.
(ii) The applicant-original accused No.1- Indra
Lalbahadur Khatri is enlarged on bail in MCOC Special Case
No. 14 of 2011 on his furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.One Lakh
with one or more solvent local sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant-original accused No.1 shall report
after every fortnight between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m to the
nearest police station to his residence.
(iv) The applicant shall furnish the details of his
residential address and contact details to the Special Court
before his enlarging on bail.
(v) The applicant shall undertake to remain present
at the time of final hearing of the appeal. In case of two
consecutive defaults in attendance, prosecution is at liberty
to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Talwalkar 4
303.IA138.2025.odt
(vi) The Applicant shall deposit passport, if any, to
the concerned police station and he shall not leave State of
Maharashtra without prior permission of this Court.
8. The Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms
and disposed of.
(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Talwalkar 5
Checking your session…