ANMOL ATUL JADHARAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AS:37818

                                                                                 15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1841 OF 2026
                                              IN
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2025

            Anmol Atul Jadharao                                  ...         Applicant
                 versus
            The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                    …           Respondents

            Mr. Kuldeep Nikam (through VC) with Mr. Om Latpate, for Applicant.
            Smt. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.
            Mr. Avinash Avhad for Respondent No.2.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       10 SEPTEMBER 2026

            ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the

            applicant on bail. In fact, this is a second application for bail. First application

            being IA No.3484 of 2025 in Cri. Appeal No.1094 of 2025, was dismissed as

            the Applicant, after the Court had expressed its disinclination to grant relief,

            had sought permission to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh

            application if the appeal was not taken up for hearing within a period of six

            months thereof.

            3.      By a judgment and order dated 9 July 2025, the Applicant has been

            convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal

            Code, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of


            SSP                                                        1/6
                                                              15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

4.    The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant in Sessions Case

No.229 of 2013 was that, the Applicant was harassing and coercing the

Respondent No.2 victim, who was then studying in third year of BCS degree

course, to maintain friendship with him. On 10 December 2012, the Applicant

allegedly accosted the victim in front of the college while the victim and her

friend (PW4) were proceeding towards the vehicle of victim’s friend. The

Applicant was armed with a sickle. The Applicant chased and assaulted the

victim. The Applicant threatened the other students and persons who tried to

intervene. The victim suffered grievous bleeding injuries. Thus, the Applicant

was sent for trial for having attempted to commit murder of the victim.

5.    After the appraisal of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pune, was persuaded to return a finding of guilt against the Applicant

and convict and sentence the Applicant, as indicated above.

6.    Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that, though

the testimony of the victim finds apparent corroboration in the evidence of her

friend (PW4), and two eye witnesses (PW3 and 5), yet, the question as to

whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, is debatable. Attention of the

Court was invited to the evidence of the medical officer, to demonstrate that

the victim had not suffered any incised wound and had sustained a head


SSP                                                  2/6
                                                            15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

injury and a CLW over the right shoulder, which were designated as grievous.

7.    Mr. Nikam further submitted that the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR

also bears upon the veracity of the testimony of the victim. In any event,

since the Applicant has been in custody for almost 1 year and four months

and it is unlikely that the appeal can be heard expeditiously, the Applicant

deserves to be enlarged on bail, lest the appeal would be rendered

infructuous, submitted Mr. Nikam.

8.    Smt. Tendulkar, learned APP and Mr. Avhad, learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2 – victim, stoutly opposed the prayer for bail.           It was

submitted that there is overwhelming evidence; direct, circumstantial and

medical, which establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, having regard to the fact that the Applicant had harassed the victim

during the pendency of the trial after he was enlarged on bail, and had also

indulged in an identical activity leading to his prosecution in Criminal Case

No.386 of 2017, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. It was submitted

that, the applicant had won over the victim in that case and thus she did not

support the prosecution.

9.    I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the

submissions canvassed across the bar.

10.   The endeavour of Mr. Nikam to demonstrate, on the basis of the

medical evidence, that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC,


SSP                                                 3/6
                                                               15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

cannot be said to have been proved, does not merit acceptance, at this

juncture.       It is well recognized, meticulous evaluation of the evidence is

impermissible while considering the prayer for suspension of sentence. The

Appellate Court can only examine whether there is such patent infirmity,

apparent or gross defect which would justify a prima facie satisfaction that, in

the ultimate analysis, the conviction may not be sustainable. To put it in other

words, it has to be seen whether the Appellant has a fair chance of success in

the Appeal. At this stage, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated with a view

to pick-up lacunae, loopholes or shortcomings in the prosecution case.

11.       Prima facie, the testimony of the victim is supported by ocular account

of other witnesses and medical evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that, the

Applicant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case that he has a

strong chance of success in appeal.

12.       This leads me to the aspect of the Applicant having been sentenced to

suffer a fixed term sentence. Ordinarily, when a person is sentenced to a fixed

term, the Appellate Court is expected to adopt a liberal approach in the matter

of suspension of sentence. In the case of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai

and Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat 1, the Supreme Court enunciated that when a

convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files

appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered


1     (1999) 4 SCC 421

SSP                                                    4/6
                                                             15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

This principle has been consistently followed. Are there exceptional

circumstances in the case at hand, to deviate from the aforesaid principle ?

13.   The following circumstances dissuade the Court from exercising the

discretion in favour of the Applicant, though he has been sentenced to suffer a

fixed term sentence. Firstly, there is evidence to indicate that, before the

occurrence in question, the Applicant had harassed, intimidated and

assaulted the victim. Secondly, the Applicant chased and assaulted the victim

armed with a deadly weapon in the precincts of a College in broad daylight

and in the presence of a number of students and other persons.       Thirdly, the

victim testified that, after the Applicant was released on bail during the

pendency of trial, the Applicant again harassed her.       Fourthly, after the

Applicant was enlarged on bail, he was prosecuted on the allegations of

having harassed and outraged the modesty of another girl. Fifthly, there is no

assurance that the Applicant will not abscond if he is enlarged on bail.      It is

pertinent to note that, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment,

the applicant ran away from the Court hall and the learned Additional

Sessions Judge was required to issue a non-bailable warrant and, eventually,

after three months, the Applicant surrendered to undergo the sentence.

14.   In the considered view of this Court, the case at hand falls in the

exceptional category where the Court may refuse to suspend the sentence.


SSP                                                 5/6
                                                                                       15 ia 1841 of 2026.doc

                      Instead, this Court would make an endeavour to hear and decide the appeal

                      finally as the appeal has been admitted and record and proceedings have

                      also been called for.

                      15.      Hence, the following order :

                                                                ORDER

                               (i)    The Interim Application stands rejected.

                               (ii)   Criminal Appeal No.1094 of 2025 be listed for hearing and final

                      disposal on 15 October 2026.




                                                                           ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                        6/6



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/09/2026 19:36:05