Bombay High Court

SONU ANANTA JADHAV @ RAJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The court held that the fine imposed under the MCOC Act may be suspended and bail granted pending appeal, considering the accused has completed the substantive sentence and the fine is exorbitant.

Summary

The Special Judge convicted Sonu Ananta Jadhav and co‑accused under IPC §§ 394, 506(2) read with § 34 and MCOC Act §§ 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), sentencing Jadhav to five years rigorous imprisonment on each count and a two‑year simple imprisonment, together with a total fine of Rs 15,30,000. Jadhav has already served the entire substantive imprisonment but remains in default prison for non‑payment of the fine. He applied for suspension of the fine and bail pending the pending appeal, arguing that the fine is exorbitant and his financial condition prevents payment. The State opposed, citing overwhelming evidence. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the fine may be disproportionate and that the court has power to suspend it and grant bail when the substantive sentence is completed. Accordingly, the fine was suspended pending appeal and bail was granted on a bond of Rs 25,000 with a surety of the same amount, subject to conditions.

Issues considered

Whether a fine imposed under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act can be suspended pending appeal when the accused has already served the substantive imprisonment.
Whether the quantum of fine is disproportionate and violative of the principle of reasonableness under the MCOC Act.
Whether bail can be granted to a convicted person who is in default imprisonment for non‑payment of fine.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 394, 506(2)
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)

Subjects

bail
suspension of fine
default imprisonment
MCOC Act
disproportionate fine
concurrent sentences
interim relief

Judgment

12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1543 OF 2026

Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj ...Appellant-
Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Mohsin Shaikh, for the Appellant-Applicant.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
KULKARNI Date:
2026.08.08
16:58:41
DATED: 6th AUGUST, 2026
+0530

PC:-

Appeal/535/2026

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Admit.

3. Call R&P.

4. Issue notice to the Respondent.

5. The learned APP waives notice for the State – Respondent.

IA/1543/2026 (Bail)

6. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to

enlarge the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

1/5
12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC

7. By a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2025 in MCOC

Special Case No.158/2021, the learned Special Judge, Mumbai,

has convicted the Applicant (A2) and co-accused Zakir Siraj

Irani (A1) for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and

506(2), read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“the Penal Code”) and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act,

1999”) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of Ive years

on each count, for the offences punishable under Section 394 of

the Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC

Act, 1999, and for an offence punishable under Section 506(2)

read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the Applicant has been

sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years.

8. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, for an offence

punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, the Applicant

has been sentenced to pay Ine of Rs.25,000/-; for an offence

punishable under Section 506(2) of the Penal Code, Ine of

Rs.5,000/- and for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)

(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, Ine of Rs.5,00,000/-,

on each count. The aggregate amount of Ine comes to

Rs.15,30,000/-.

2/5
12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC

9. The applicant has been in custody since 15 th February,

2020. As the learned Special Judge directed that all the

substantive sentences shall run concurrently, the Applicant has

already undergone the substantive sentence on each count.

However, since the Applicant could not deposit the Ine, the

applicant is undergoing the default sentence.

10. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that on

account of poor Inancial position, the Applicant could not

deposit huge Ine amount of Rs.15,30,000/-. The Applicant has

undergone in default sentence of almost eight months in

addition to the substantive sentence of Ive years rigorous

imprisonment. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near

future. Therefore, the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

11. The learned APP resisted the submissions on behalf of the

Applicant. It was urged that, there is overwhelming evidence

against the Applicant and, therefore, the sentence need not be

suspended.

12. Evidently, the Applicant has undergone the entire

substantive sentence. It is trite, even if there is no maximum

limit on the imposition of Ine under the provisions of Section

3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, the amount of Ine

cannot be disproportionate and exorbitant. The Court is
3/5
12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC

enjoined to take into account the attendant circumstances,

including the capacity of the accused to pay the Ine, while

determining the quantum of Ine. In a such situation of the

present nature, the Appellate Court is not denuded of the power

to suspend the sentence of Ine. A useful reference in this

context can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in

the cases of Satyendra Kumar Mehra alias Satendera Kumar

Mehra vs. State of Jharkhand 1 and Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Ashok Sirpal2

13. As the Applicant has undergone the entire substantive

sentence and even almost eight months imprisonment in default

of payment of Ine and it is extremely unlikely that the appeal

can be heard, before the default sentence come to an end, this

Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to suspend

the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail during the

pendency of the appeal.

14. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

(i) The application stands allowed.

1 (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 139.
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3036.
4/5
12-CRIAPEAL535-2026+.DOC

(ii) The sentence of Ine imposed by the learned Special Judge

in MCOC Special Case No. 158/2021, arising out of CR

No. 827/2020 registered with Dindoshi Police Station,

stands suspended till the Inal disposal of the appeal.

(iii) The Applicant, Sonu Ananta Jadhav @ Raj, be enlarged

on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Special Judge.

(iv) The Applicant shall mark his presence at Dindoshi Police

Station, on the Irst Monday of September and March

every year, till the disposal of the appeal.

(v) The Applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards the Ine in the trial Court, within a period of six

weeks from today.

(vi) The Applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal,

as and when directed.

The application stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…