PRAVIN @ VITHAL PRAKASH AVHADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1627 OF 2026
                                                              IN
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2020

                       Pravin @ Vitthal Prakash Avhad                ..               Applicant/Appellant


                       V/S.
                       State of Maharashtra                          ..                       Respondent
                                                           -------------------
                       Ms. Sana Khan a/w. Mr. Jinay Jain, for the Applicant/Appellant.

                       Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP, for the respondent/State.

                                                           --------------------
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                                                 CORAM :           MANISH PITALE &
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
                                                                          SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.17
11:32:04 +0530                                             DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026.

                       ORDER: (Per Shreeram Shirsat, J.)


                      1.          Heard Ms. Sana Khan, the learned counsel for the Applicant

                      /Appellant and Ms. Pallavi Dabolkar, APP, for the State.


                      2.          The Applicant is seeking bail and suspension of sentence pending the

                      appeal primarily on the ground that he has suffered a long incarceration

                      for a period of more than 10 years.


                      3.          The Applicant / Appellant has been convicted by a judgment and

                      order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in

                      Sessions Case No. 122/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections
                      Vishal P.                                                                      ….1 of 8
143, 148, 302, 325 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for life. Against the said order of conviction, the

Applicant/Appellant has preferred an Appeal before this Court, being

Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2020, which is pending before this Court.


4.          The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that Interim Application

No. 3150/2023 preferred by the Applicant was withdrawn on 18.10.2023

as the Court was not inclined to grant relief, however liberty was granted

to mention the appeal for final hearing and to prepare the paper book

within six months.


5.          The Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied upon the judgments of

Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446 , Sonadhar v.

State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) SC 788 and Rushikesh ( Bhaiyya) Sharad

Suryawanshi v State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 4191 of 2026 @

SLP (Cri.) Nos 14868 of 2026 .

6.          The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the

Applicant has been incarcerated for a period of more than 10 years and

that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. She submitted

that the Applicant is in jail since the date of his arrest. She also submitted

that there are no extenuating circumstances or any criminal antecedents

against the Applicant and therefore urged that the Applicant be released on

bail on any terms and conditions.

Vishal P.                                                                  ….2 of 8
7.          Per Contra, the Learned APP strongly opposed the release of the

Applicant on bail pending the Appeal and submitted that the Applicant is

involved in a serious offence and is convicted under Section 143, 148, 302,

325 and 452 of the IPC. The Ld. APP submitted that the offence has been

committed by the Applicant along with his friends out of vengeance in a

very calculated manner. The Ld. APP submitted that the deceased was

assaulted using iron rods, which led to the death of the deceased and

therefore submitted that the Applicant does not deserve to be released on

bail pending the appeal.


8.          It will be pertinent to mention that this court on 16/7/2026 had

taken note of the fact that the earlier bail application was withdrawn and

that the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant had submitted that the Applicant

had undergone incarceration for 10 years. However, this court was of the

opinion that this appeal along with the other connected appeals can be

taken up for final hearing and had fixed the date for hearing for 5/8/2026.

The Ld. Counsel further submitted that thereafter on couple of occasions

the appeal did not reach due to the other criminal appeals which were

going on in which the accused were in jail, much prior in point of time as

compared to the present Applicant. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

therefore had mentioned the Interim Application for bail on the ground

that the appellant has completed 10 years and that the appeal is not likely


Vishal P.                                                               ….3 of 8
to be taken up for final hearing in near future.

9.          We had asked the Ld. APP to call for a report from the jail authorities

to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment undergone by the Applicant.

Initially the report dated 18.8.2026 which was called, did not provide the

complete details and therefore the Ld. APP was once again asked to call for

the complete details so as to ascertain the actual years of imprisonment.

10.         The Learned APP has placed on record the record sheet/custody

report of the Applicant dated 21.8.2026, submitted by the Superintendent

of Jail, Open Prison, Paithan, wherein it has been mentioned that the

Applicant has undergone               10 years 3 months and 21 days of actual

imprisonment

11.         In Saudan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has been pleased to

observe as under :

                  “7. There may be cases where for whatever reason the advocate
                  may not be present as has been set out in the report of the High
                  Court but if they have already completed 14 years of actual
                  sentence, the State itself should take an appropriate stand and
                  the learned Judge can himself pass appropriate orders to at least
                  examine those cases for release and the absence of the advocate
                  cannot come in the way in such a scenario.

                  8. We have put to learned AAG and the learned counsel for the
                  High Court that a list should be prepared of all cases where the
                  person has served out a sentence of 14 years, is not a repeat
                  offender, and in any case if in these cases at one go bail can be
                  granted and cases remitted for examination under the Uttar
                  Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1938. In all these
                  cases, there is a high possibility that if these people are released,
                  they may not be even interest in prosecuting their appeals.



Vishal P.                                                                                 ….4 of 8
                  9. The second category of cases can be one where the person has
                  served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at
                  one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating
                  circumstances against him.

                  10. We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the
                  aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be
                  troubled with such matters.”


12.         We are of the opinion that in terms of categorization specified by

the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra), and since the

Applicant has served more than 10 years of actual imprisonment, the bail

application of the Applicant can be considered.

13.         The Applicant has undergone actual imprisonment of more than 10

years. The Applicant is now in open jail with a remark of good conduct and

there are no criminal antecedents. There are less chances of the appeal

being taken up for hearing in the near future and therefore taking into

consideration all the factors stated above, we are inclined to release the

applicant on bail pending the appeal.

14.         At this stage, we may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in

Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), wherein it has been observed

that, “we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of

sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating

circumstances, should be enlarged on bail."

15.         We also refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in Dinesh

PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2987


Vishal P.                                                                             ….5 of 8
of 2023), where it is observed that “the appellant has undergone

incarceration for a period of more than 11 years. In fact, the High Court

ought to have granted relief under Section 389 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 to the appellant.”

16.         The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has also placed reliance on the

recent order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rushikesh

( Bhaiyya) Sharad Suryawanshi v State of Maharashtra supra, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to release the Applicant on bail

pending the appeal. In the said case the Apex Court had also taken into

consideration the facts of the case and thereafter by observing that the

Appellant therein had undergone a period of 8 years and the appeal before

the High Court is of the year 2025, had released the appellant on bail The

order came to be passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

17.         In any event taking into consideration the dictum of the Apex Court

in the case of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( supra) Sonadhar v.

State of Chhattisgarh, (supra), Dinesh PauI @ Daniel Khajekar v. State of

Maharashtra (supra), we are inclined to allow this application. As a

consequence, the Applicant is found to be entitled to be released on bail

during the pendency of the appeal.


                                     ORDER


A) The Application is allowed.

Vishal P.                                                                 ….6 of 8
B) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 122/2016 vide judgment dated
26.12.2019 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, and the
Applicant is released on bail on the following conditions:

            i) The Applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a
            surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand)
            with one or more local sureties.

            (ii) The Applicant is directed to mark his attendance at the
            Upnagar Police Station, Nashik, on the first Monday of every
            month for a period of one year initially, and thereafter once in
            six months till the disposal of the appeal, preferably on the first
            Monday of January and June of every year. In case of two
            consecutive defaults in complying with the aforesaid condition,
            the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for
            cancellation of bail.

            (iii) The Applicant is directed to furnish his residential address
            and phone number and inform the police if there is any change
            in the address or phone number.

            (iv) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
            without informing the Upnagar Police Station, Nashik.

            (v) The Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
            permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any,
            with this Court.

            (vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
            inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with
            the facts of the case.

Vishal P.                                                                    ….7 of 8
             (vii) The Applicant shall not misuse his liberty and/or flout any
             of the conditions imposed herein.

             (viii) The Applicant shall not commit any offense during the
             period of his release.

             (ix) The Applicant shall make himself available at the time of
             the final hearing of the appeal.




18.         The Application for bail and suspension of sentence is disposed of.

All other pending applications stand disposed of.




            (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                      (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Vishal P.                                                                    ….8 of 8