Bombay High Court

BIRU NAMDEV PANDHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the substantive sentences, including life imprisonment, are to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and bail granted on condition of a bond.

Summary

The High Court considered an interim application filed by Biru Namdev Pandhare seeking suspension of his life imprisonment and other sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a 2014 murder and related offences case. The prosecution alleged that Pandhare shot the victim during a land dispute, supported by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, while the defence highlighted inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and the non‑recovery of the firearm. Pandhare also contended that a life sentence was not statutorily authorized and that he had already served over ten years, warranting relief. Relying on the principle that a sentence may be suspended pending appeal, especially after prolonged incarceration, the Court allowed the application. Consequently, the substantive sentences were suspended, bail was granted on a bond, and the applicant was ordered to cooperate for an early hearing of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the life imprisonment sentence can be suspended pending the pendency of the appeal
Whether the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence not expressly provided for under the statute
Whether the evidentiary inconsistencies and non‑recovery of the firearm justify suspension of the sentence and grant of bail
Whether bail can be granted to an appellant who has already served more than ten years in custody

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 258(2)
Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 135
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 235(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 149, 201, 302, 307

Subjects

suspension of sentence
life imprisonment
appeal
bail
evidentiary inconsistency
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
Arms Act

Judgment

16-IA-1458-2025.doc

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

CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1458 OF 2025
IN
CR. APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2025

Biru Namdev Pandhare ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

——————
Mr. Sudatta J. Patil i/b Mr. Shubham M. Patil, Mr. Pratik G. Tare, Mr. Gaurav S.
Chandole and Ms. Sakshi Sanjay Kadam, Advocates for the Applicant.
Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent - State
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : October 01, 2026.
P. C. :

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

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case

No.57/2014 vide Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2025, convicting and

sentencing the Applicant / Appellant as follows :

“1. The accused No.11 Biru Namdev Pandhare is hereby convicted
under section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C., (Sec.258 (2) of Bhartiaya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita) of the ofence punishable under section 302 of
Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life
till remainder of his life and he shall pay ine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees
Five Thousand each), in default to undergo further simple
imprisonment for six months.

Sameer 1 of 5
16-IA-1458-2025.doc

2. Accused No.11 Biru Namdev Pandhare is hereby convicted under
section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C., (Sec.258 (2) of BNSS) of the ofences
punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code and he is
sentenced to sufer imprisonment for three years and he shall pay
ine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees one Thousand), in default to undergo
further simple imprisonment for two months.
3. Accused No.11 Biru Namdev Pandhare is hereby convicted under
section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C., (Sec.258(2) of BNSS) of the ofence
under Sec.3 punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act and he is
sentenced to sufer simple imprisonment for two years and he shall
pay ine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one Thousand), in default to undergo
further simple imprisonment for one month.
4. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
5. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
6. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
7. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
8. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
9. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
10. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
11. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
12. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
13. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… ….. …..
14. ….. …… …… …… ….. …… …… …… …. …..”

2. It is the case of the Prosecution that, due to the land dispute

between the Deceased and her family on one side and the Applicant /

Appellant and his family on the other side. On 19.07.2014, when the

witnesses were levelling the disputed land, the Applicant / Appellant

and his family members came on the spot. The quarrel took place

between both the sides. The quarrel took a violent turn. The Applicant /

Appellant shot Ujwala from his irearm. The irearm injury proved fatal.

The incident was reported to the Sangola Police Station, and Crime

No.232/2014 came to be registered for the ofence punishable under

Sameer 2 of 5
16-IA-1458-2025.doc

Sections 302, 307, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’], Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959

[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arms Act’], and Section 135 of the

Bombay Police Act, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’]

against the Applicant / Appellant and twelve (12) others. The charge-

sheet came to be iled after completion of the investigation. After a full-

ledged trial, the impugned Judgment and Order came to be passed.

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

Appellant that, there are inconsistencies in the testimony of the

eyewitnesses examined by the Prosecution. The irearm is not

recovered / discovered, and so the evidence of eyewitnesses do not ind

corroboration. There is no evidence to show that, the death was caused

by the use of the irearm of the Applicant / Appellant. He further

submits that, the Applicant / Appellant is behind bars for a period of

more than ten (10) years. He submits that, the Application be allowed

and the Applicant / Appellant is ready to abide by any conditions that

may be imposed.

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

the Prosecution’s case is based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses,

which is consistent. The case of the Prosecution is duly corroborated by

the medical evidence. She submits that, considering the nature of the

Sameer 3 of 5
16-IA-1458-2025.doc

ofence, this is not a it case to grant bail and suspend the sentence.

5. The learned Trial Court has imposed punishment in the nature of

life imprisonment till the remainder of Applicant’s life, for the ofence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The learned Counsel for the

Applicant / Appellant submits that, such sentence is not provided under

the statute and cannot be awarded by the learned Trial Court. He places

reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Naval Kishore and Another Vs. State of Punjab; 2026 SCC Online SC

2000 in support of the said contention. It is not in dispute that, the

Applicant / Appellant is behind bars for a period of more than ten (10)

years. The Appeal is of 2025 and not likely to be heard inally in the near

future. Therefore, without touching the merits of the matter, we allow

the Application on the ground of long incarceration. Hence, the

following order :

ORDER

[a] The Application is allowed.

[b] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case
No.57/2014 vide Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2025 on
the Applicant / Appellant, is suspended during pendency of
the Appeal.

Sameer 4 of 5
16-IA-1458-2025.doc

[c] Applicant - Biru Namdev Pandhare be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

[d] The Applicant shall cooperate with this Court for early
hearing of the Appeal.

[e] Bail before the learned Trial Court.

[f] Application stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.10.01
18:47:57
+0530

Sameer 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…